Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

[fix]

Hardly, its just the opposite. I investigated this area very thoroughly some months ago, and several of us quoted directly from documents of both Benedict and JPII as well as theologians who all stated in black and white, that in the end NO ONE can give up their own belief. In fact it says this in the CCC as well. Those who oppose such a notion simply disregarded the documents and claimed they were not “dogma.” Mostly they were just jumped over and the same tired arguments used again.

**

1786

**

Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

All of the Church teaching must be reconciled. Simply emphasizing only that one must follow a certain conscience without emphasizing the entire teaching makes the truth into a type of lie.

 

[patg]

It is not merely “Church dogma” to which we assent but God’s will as explained by the Church Christ instituted for that very purpose.

*“The faithful are obliged to acknowledge and respect the specific moral precepts declared and taught by the Church in the name of God.” *(Veritatis splendor #76)

That brings up an interesting side point - can we differentiate between dissent in “moral precepts” versus dissent in more procedural/organizational items?

It is clear that the church’s organization is similar to that of the absolute dictatorships which were popular at the time of its formation. There were times when the church tried to control nearly every aspect of its member’s lives (and since it assumed everyone should be a member, that included most everyone). Members were told what they could read, what to believe about the physical nature of the universe, what they could write, what they could study, and so on.

I contend that dissent concerning such things is healthy for both the church and its members. Since the church eventually relented on its attempts to control these aspects of life, its leaders apparantly agreed.

Recently we have had significant changes in the church’s view on the interpretation of scripture and the use of historical criticism. There has always been subtle suppressed dissent on these issues and, once again, the church has recognized that there was a need to rethink and change things.

We also have dissent on the topics of female participation in the magesterial process and/or ordination. Does dissent on these issues relate in any way to "moral precepts "? Is dissent in non-moral issues at the same level as dissent in moral issues?

If some moral teachings are based on completely faulty ancient understandings of human biology, again, maybe a little dissent is a good thing.

 

[estesbob]

That

It is clear that the church’s organization is similar to that of the absolute dictatorships which were popular at the time of its formation. There were times when the church tried to control nearly every aspect of its member’s lives (and since it assumed everyone should be a member, that included most everyone). Members were told what they could read, what to believe about the physical nature of the universe, what they could write, what they could study, and so on.

.

Lest put aside for a second that God knew full well the Culture he placing his son in. It was no accident. However it appears you are saying that the solution to the Church hierarchy being a product of the culture it was formed in is to have the Church hierarchy conform to the culture it is currently in. And not only that but to conform to the culture of the western industrialized countries(female ordination is not much of an issue in the rest of the Church). We have seen the mass confusion and dissension such a policy has resulted in among our separated brethren.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Hell will have ten times the population of heaven.

Please provide a scripture or infallible declaration by the Church that this is so. Please note that private revelations are not infallible declarations of the Church.

 

[Ender]

can we differentiate between dissent in “moral precepts” versus dissent in more procedural/organizational items?

Clearly there are differences between moral issues and organizational ones. Disagreement with the former is a problem, disagreement with the latter may not be although disobedience surely is.

We also have dissent on the topics of female participation in the magesterial process and/or ordination. Does dissent on these issues relate in any way to "moral precepts "? Is dissent in non-moral issues at the same level as dissent in moral issues?

The Church speaks with the authority of God on issues of faith and morals. The question of female ordination is an issue of faith on which the Church has unequivocally spoken. Dissent on this issue is divisive and harmful to the Church and her members.

If some moral teachings are based on completely faulty ancient understandings of human biology, again, maybe a little dissent is a good thing.

Indeed. If the Church is faulty in her understanding of morality then she has nothing whatever to teach us. Is this your position?

Ender

 

[patg]

Clearly there are differences between moral issues and organizational ones. Disagreement with the former is a problem, disagreement with the latter may not be although disobedience surely is.

Yes.

The Church speaks with the authority of God on issues of faith and morals. The question of female ordination is an issue of faith…

I don’t think so - it has nothing to do with faith or morals, although some some try to imply that it does in order to bolster weak arguments. (But I am just using that as an example and not as the start of yet another round of the same arguments).

Dissent on this issue is divisive and harmful to the Church and her members.

Only if those members start being disobedient and start ordaining women or including them in the magesterium. I haven’t done either, so I obey totally (and disagree totally).

Indeed. If the Church is faulty in her understanding of morality then she has nothing whatever to teach us. Is this your position?

My position is that there are several “moral” issues that became moral issues in the distant past because of a misunderstanding of human biology, for example. Since it is always far easier to continue condemning something than it is to uncondemn it, the church always finds some semantical way to express the immorality and thus avoid the need to explain that just maybe it has overstated the implications of some act.

This is no way implies that I am saying the church has nothing to teach us.

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. The topics of dissent we have been talking about aren’t even mentioned by God and yet what is the church teaching us by ignoring so many other direct commands?

 

[estesbob]

My position is that there are several “moral” issues that became moral issues in the distant past because of a misunderstanding of human biology, for example. Since it is always far easier to continue condemning something than it is to uncondemn it, the church always finds some semantical way to express the immorality and thus avoid the need to explain that just maybe it has overstated the implications of some act.

How would God misundersttod biology? How can something be immoral for 2,000 and suddenly become moral? Is truth relative?
Was the Culture Jesus was born into an accident?

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. The topics of dissent we have been talking about aren’t even mentioned by God and yet what is the church teaching us by ignoring so many other direct commands?

Have you not heard of the New Covenant? None of the above is required under the new covenant

 

[drpmjhess]

Please provide a scripture or infallible declaration by the Church that this is so. Please note that private revelations are not infallible declarations of the Church.

My mistake: Since 85% of Catholics unapologetically use artificial contraception, hell will have only 5.66 times the number of residents of heaven (85/15 = 5.66%), unless other sins are factored in.

 

[Fitswimmer]

My mistake: Since 85% of Catholics unapologetically use artificial contraception, hell will have only 5.66 times the number of residents of heaven (85/15 = 5.66%), unless other sins are factored in.

I would humbly suggest that your actual mistake would be deciding for yourself who is going to Hell and who is not. We know Church teaching but we do not know the mind of God, nor can we predict the future actions of 85% of Catholics. By condemning them to Hell, you’ve eliminated any possible chance for their redemption.

 

[drpmjhess]

I would humbly suggest that your actual mistake would be deciding for yourself who is going to Hell and who is not. We know Church teaching but we do not know the mind of God, nor can we predict the future actions of 85% of Catholics. By condemning them to Hell, you’ve eliminated any possible chance for their redemption.

Unrepented mortal sin…God’s call

 

[Fitswimmer]

Unrepented mortal sin…God’s call

yes, but only that individual and God know whether their sin has been unrepented at the time of death. We do not and there is no way can know such a thing.

 

[drpmjhess]

yes, but only that individual and God know whether their sin has been unrepented at the time of death. We do not and there is no way can know such a thing.

That’s why my claim about the population of Hell is based on statistical averages only, and doesn’t pretend to assign any one user of artificial contraception to that circle. One could of course use it until menopause, then repent when it’s no longer necessary.

 

[Fitswimmer]

That’s why my claim about the population of Hell is based on statistical averages only, and doesn’t pretend to assign any one user of artificial contraception to that circle. One could of course use it until menopause, then repent when it’s no longer necessary.

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.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

My mistake: Since 85% of Catholics unapologetically use artificial contraception, hell will have only 5.66 times the number of residents of heaven (85/15 = 5.66%), unless other sins are factored in.

This is getting way off topic, but you do not have any hard data on who actually goes to “hell”, you can only infer and theorize.

 

[Ender]

I don’t think so - {the ordination of women} has nothing to do with faith or morals, although some some try to imply that it does in order to bolster weak arguments.

It is accepted 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.

My position is that there are several “moral” issues that became moral issues in the distant past because of a misunderstanding of human biology, for example.

Morality has never been based on biology. I’m quite sure early Christians were uncertain about biology but I am less convinced that God was.

Since it is always far easier to continue condemning something than it is to uncondemn it, the church always finds some semantical way to express the immorality and thus avoid the need to explain that just maybe it has overstated the implications of some act.

This is no way implies that I am saying the church has nothing to teach us.

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

Ender

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Given your comments on the primacy of the conscience I’m surprised we are so close in agreement on this point. It is clear that our sins are not overlooked simply because we commit them with a clear conscience; I do, however, take issue with your characterization of assent.

It is not merely “Church dogma” to which we assent but God’s will as explained by the Church Christ instituted for that very purpose. *

“The faithful are obliged to acknowledge and respect the specific moral precepts declared and taught by the Church in the name of God.” *(Veritatis splendor #76)

That is, if you accept that the Catholic Church was in fact instituted by God and accurately interprets his word, then assent is not to an earthly institution but to God himself and cannot be characterized as “hiding behind Church dogma.”

Ender

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.

Such ideas are indeed horrifying to me. To suggest as some do, that all morality is to be dictated by the Church with no independant assessment makes virtually anyone unfit for public office for instance.

I personally don’t believe Jesus intended to set up a Church. I do believe that the Catholic church is the natural result of the early faith experiences of the apostles and those who came after them. I do believe that God through the HS guides all his faithful to accurately live the teachings of Jesus. I suppose that is a bit unclear but that is the best I can do.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I would humbly suggest that your actual mistake would be deciding for yourself who is going to Hell and who is not. We know Church teaching but we do not know the mind of God, nor can we predict the future actions of 85% of Catholics. By condemning them to Hell, you’ve eliminated any possible chance for their redemption.

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.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It is accepted 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.

Morality has never been based on biology. I’m quite sure early Christians were uncertain about biology but I am less convinced that God was.
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. You cannot dismiss what she teaches in one area without rejecting the basis on which she teaches everything.

Ender

Ender can you give a citation? 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. As far as I know, Jesus never used the word priest or named anyone as a priest. The word was not used in the early church either as far as I know. Of course many would argue that some women in Jesus’ group functioned the same as the apostles. And of course there are a number of examples during his lifetime and certainly afterward when it was women were were preaching and announcing the good news.

 

[PapaSquash]

Just to be clear, was it wrong to allow the South Americans who relied on the capyberas for food to eat them, or would it have been wrong to forbid it?

 

[estesbob]

Ender can you give a citation? 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. As far as I know, Jesus never used the word priest or named anyone as a priest. The word was not used in the early church either as far as I know. Of course many would argue that some women in Jesus’ group functioned the same as the apostles. And of course there are a number of examples during his lifetime and certainly afterward when it was women were were preaching and announcing the good news.

I dont think there is any wiggle room, Heres what he said:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32)* I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.**
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html