Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

[SpiritMeadow]

Do you dissenters (SpiritMeadow, patg, drpmjhess, etc) differentiate between what you consider infallible teachings of the church and what you consider changeable? Or do you even believe in infallibility at all? Not specifically papal infallibility, but the infallibility of the magesterium.

As I have stated before, I’m not sure we even agree on what is considered “infallible” at this point. I hear a lot of different definitions and a lot of differerent lists. I trust that over time the Spirit of the collective church corrects error. Those churches that do not are in my opinion doomed to ultimate failure. So far the Catholic Church has managed to endure longer than any other form of Christianity. I hope and believe that that bodes well for her in the long run. I consider it an obligation to speak out when i believe my Church is straying from truth. Full and honest and open discussion is the only means I am aware of that successfully ends in truth. In that I agree 100 percent with President Madison.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Wikipedia says that David Lodge “was brought up as a Catholic — though he later described himself as an agnostic Catholic”

That’s a pretty good description for Catholic dissenters. They’re Catholic by birth or cultural identify – and agnostic in belief.

As for the reference: David Lodge’s novel, The British Museum is Falling Down (1965)

I am up 10 points!!!

Perhaps you might review the definition of agnostic before you cast such insults. How extremely uncharitable of you. And of course you have no idea what is inside anyone’s heart but your own. Shame on ya.

 

[estesbob]

With all due respect Bob, I don’t know how much plainer I can be. I am not attempting to prove anything to you. I have given you some ideas should you be interested in pursuing the matter but beyond that I’m not doing it for you. Some have already challenged me that such evidence cannot overcome the magisterium of the Church which is what they define as authority. If that is the case, then there is no reason to give you chapter and verse, since it will be rejected as “not authoritative.”

I.

Actually I would be interersted in seeing what evidence they have to back up their claim.I have never run across it before. You are right, howver, that i wouldnt accept it anyway as it would contradict the opinion of just about Bible Scholar who went before them.

 

[Ender]

Full and honest and open discussion is the only means I am aware of that successfully ends in truth. In that I agree 100 percent with President Madison.

Perhaps this is true in the scientific field but it surely is not true of morality. Unless there is some definitive way of knowing objective truth there is no amount of discussion that will lead to it or stop there once it is found. Since we don’t even have agreement on the existence of objective truth there is no reason whatever that there will ever be agreement on what it is.

Moral virtues are not discoverable by mere debate; there must be basic proposals that are accepted by all sides within which there is a context for discussion. Here is what the Church believes: the magisterium of the Catholic Church is the sole, valid interpreter of God’s moral laws. Without agreement on that point, which a great many people simply cannot accept, there is no possibility of ever reaching agreement on what truth is.

Ender

 

[Aquinas74]

Nobody is perfect. Not even a Padre Pio or a Mother Theresa.

How we respond is a matter of humility.

I guess Mark, I look it at this way. Btw I am a relatively new poster. The way I see it as Christ was obedient to our Heavenly father, so too must I (we) be obedient to Christ and his Church that he founded. I can honestly say that I have never questioned the Church’s teachings . That might strike some as odd, but that’s me. One look at my signature will tell you where my loyalties lie. I am thankful and obedient to the Church Christ has given us.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Perhaps this is true in the scientific field but it surely is not true of morality. Unless there is some definitive way of knowing objective truth there is no amount of discussion that will lead to it or stop there once it is found. Since we don’t even have agreement on the existence of objective truth there is no reason whatever that there will ever be agreement on what it is.

Moral virtues are not discoverable by mere debate; there must be basic proposals that are accepted by all sides within which there is a context for discussion. Here is what the Church believes: the magisterium of the Catholic Church is the sole, valid interpreter of God’s moral laws. Without agreement on that point, which a great many people simply cannot accept, there is no possibility of ever reaching agreement on what truth is.

Ender

I simply don’t agree. I think humanity has agreed over time in almost all civilizations as to what constitutes basic morality. I thnk the Athenians did so and I think the Jews did so, and Buddha did so. On basics all faiths are in pretty fair agreement as to what is moral. I am not one of those people who believes that there is no thing such as objective morality. I indeed believe there is. I think at some point in the developing community of ideas a consensus is reached that some things are simply correct by virtue of their being right. Such things as individual rights, refraining from violence, brotherhood, common cause, and a host of other moral shoulds are established. But if you don’t agree of course, discussion is probably meaningless. Sad to think that that is true, but it does end rational discussion. To claim that one side in any discussion (yours) is claimant to all truth certainly does put the other side off. I feel such an attitude is viewed as arrogant self righteousness by others, whether meant so or not, and stifles common understanding.

And frankly I don’t think you are correct in stating what the Church teaches. Surely you are not saying that the Church claims that she and she alone is the sole repository of truth? If that were true, of course, it would explain why so many turn in disgust from the Church for such arrogance. Other faiths have truths as well, and I believe our Holy Fathers have often commented upon it. This idea that all are condemned if they do not adopt Catholicism is frankly not helpful in interfaith discussions nor in finding common cause to address our myriad global problems. The Us-them mentality is simply an outmoded and useless concept that drives people apart. Such is not the I submit the message of our Lord or any of our great prophets around the globe.

 

[minimom]

Hi all: Just found a good list of books posters here may be interested in. I’ve not read them all, but I do know these are excellent loyal-to-the-Church sources, and I have several other books by these sources:
Roman Catholic Books: online: BooksforCatholics.com Women Who Make The World Worse by Kate O’Beirne; The Deceiver by Fr. Fanzaga; Women Priests & Other Fantasies by Fr. Vincent Miceli;
Leaflet Missal Company online: leafletonline.com Discernment of Spirits by Fr. Timothy Gallagher OMV; His Time Is Short by Fr. Randall Paine ORC; Liberalism Is A Sin (note: available to read online at liberalismisasin.com, I believe) Chance or Purpose? by Cardinal Christoph Schonborn; Can A Catholic Be A Democrat? by David Carlin; Catholic and Loving It by Sabitha Narendran and Andrew Salzmann.
From Mary Immaculate Queen Center (miqcenter.com) Rules for Discerning Spirits by Barrielle
From Ignatius Press (ignatius.com) Confessions of an Ex-Feminist by Lorraine Murray.

God bless all

Be alert!
Satan knows his time is short…and he’ll deceive as many as possible…
Stay close to the Lord and His Church!

 

[Aquinas74]

And frankly I don’t think you are correct in stating what the Church teaches. Surely you are not saying that the Church claims that she and she alone is the sole repository of truth? If that were true, of course, it would explain why so many turn in disgust from the Church for such arrogance. Other faiths have truths as well, and I believe our Holy Fathers have often commented upon it. This idea that all are condemned if they do not adopt Catholicism is frankly not helpful in interfaith discussions nor in finding common cause to address our myriad global problems. The Us-them mentality is simply an outmoded and useless concept that drives people apart. Such is not the I submit the message of our Lord or any of our great prophets around the globe.

The Catholic Church is the Truth, it is the Church founded and given to us by Jesus Christ…

"Outside the Church there is no salvation" - How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

    "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 14).

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church:

    "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).

 

[minimom]

The Catholic Church is the Truth, it is the Church founded and given to us by Jesus Christ…

"Outside the Church there is no salvation" - How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

    "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 14).

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church:

    "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).

So true, Aquinas. I’m wondering why SpiritMeadow and related put more faith in this troubled world and it’s weak, sinful people than in the Lord?? What do they intend to say to the Lord on Judgement Day?? I hope and pray that they begin to think about that. This world will pass; eternity is forever.

 

[TOME]

Mark,
My answer to your question found in your original post is Dissenters call themselves Cathoilc and remain in the Church because they sincerely believe they are Catholic and do not need to go anywhere else.

From my own experience in CAF I have found that althought I disagree with some of the more radical views and I believe some of the viewpoints expressed from my liberal brothers and sisters, most are not of such a nature that I am move to start collecting bundles of wood. And my opinion is often reenforced when I read the contrary opinions of my more orthodox and conservative brethern that convinced me they really do not know what they are talking about but are hiding behind the facade of the “Magisterium” in the same way many Americans use the term “Un-Constitutional” to give force to their opinion.

I think a major reason for the polarity we find in this forum can be traced back to extremely poor catechesis we have all been subjected to duing the past 100 years.

For those who tend to be more liberal I think have been unduly influenced by the worst of the influences of the Enlightenment has had on our society, such as the growth and predominance of moral relativitism and legal positivism, and a liberation theology that is rooted in social action not in Sacramental life of the Catholic Church. Many of us have been influenced by the growth of modern scriptural scholarship that is too often devoid of the spiritual demention of the Bible. In other words, for many of us the catechesis we have received has been sanitized by having God as He has revealed Himself to us through Scripture and Sacred Tradition so that Christ is not God made Man (Incarnation), Christ is not the fullness of God’s revelation nor is the Church Christ’s “Mystical Body” here on Earth. Too often the underlying theology we have received has been “social action” is what makes the Church, Church - failing to understand and proclaim our “Communion” is rooted in the Eucharist.

However, as I began to expressed above, it seems to me my more conservative brothers and sisters are really ignorant about what the Church actually teaches and doesn’t teach. I doubt that the majority of those orthodox catholcs active in this forum would be able to explain the difference between a doctrine and a dogma but would have to revert to cutting and pasting or posting their answer from the CCC or other sources which they have on file. Nor would the majority be able to list the offical dogmas of the Church as found in Canon Law. (Remember I said majority and yes this was a trick question!) Why is it that in many discussion, no matter what the topic, many of my orthodox brothers and sisters seldom use the writings of Popes John Paul II or Benedict XVI or Vatican II for that matter. How often in discussions here are the writings of John Paul II and Card.Ratzinger/Benedict XVI ever used especially as they relate to modern Westen Society and Culture in such areas as economics (capitalism) law, morality, war, the family and war and the benefits of biblical scholarship? But there is no dearth of quotes against “Modernism” “Liberalism” from the popes of the late 19th and 20th centuries. It is almost as if for many here there has been no theological development in the Church since the death of Pius XII. So my question is the theology that seems to have been stuck and ostified in the 19th century really the authentic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?

So Mark, I believe the answer is all those who call themselves Catholic, especially those who participate in this forum, sincerely believe they are Catholic.

 

[drpmjhess]

BuZZZZZZZ! I wasn’t referring to David Lodge, I was referring to “NOMAD: Non sequitir. Your facts are uncoordinated.”

What was said had nothing to do with what I said.

Star Trek, the Changeling. But “sequitir” is misspelled.

 

[minimom]

Mark,
My answer to your question found in your original post is Dissenters call themselves Cathoilc and remain in the Church because they sincerely believe they are Catholic and do not need to go anywhere else.

From my own experience in CAF I have found that althought I disagree with some of the more radical views and I believe some of the viewpoints expressed from my liberal brothers and sisters, most are not of such a nature that I am move to start collecting bundles of wood. And my opinion is often reenforced when I read the contrary opinions of my more orthodox and conservative brethern that convinced me they really do not know what they are talking about but are hiding behind the facade of the “Magisterium” in the same way many Americans use the term “Un-Constitutional” to give force to their opinion.

I think a major reason for the polarity we find in this forum can be traced back to extremely poor catechesis we have all been subjected to duing the past 100 years.

For those who tend to be more liberal I think have been unduly influenced by the worst of the influences of the Enlightenment has had on our society, such as the growth and predominance of moral relativitism and legal positivism, and a liberation theology that is rooted in social action not in Sacramental life of the Catholic Church. Many of us have been influenced by the growth of modern scriptural scholarship that is too often devoid of the spiritual demention of the Bible. In other words, for many of us the catechesis we have received has been sanitized by having God as He has revealed Himself to us through Scripture and Sacred Tradition so that Christ is not God made Man (Incarnation), Christ is not the fullness of God’s revelation nor is the Church Christ’s “Mystical Body” here on Earth. Too often the underlying theology we have received has been “social action” is what makes the Church, Church - failing to understand and proclaim our “Communion” is rooted in the Eucharist.

However, as I began to expressed above, it seems to me my more conservative brothers and sisters are really ignorant about what the Church actually teaches and doesn’t teach. I doubt that the majority of those orthodox catholcs active in this forum would be able to explain the difference between a doctrine and a dogma but would have to revert to cutting and pasting or posting their answer from the CCC or other sources which they have on file. Nor would the majority be able to list the offical dogmas of the Church as found in Canon Law. (Remember I said majority and yes this was a trick question!) Why is it that in many discussion, no matter what the topic, many of my orthodox brothers and sisters seldom use the writings of Popes John Paul II or Benedict XVI or Vatican II for that matter. How often in discussions here are the writings of John Paul II and Card.Ratzinger/Benedict XVI ever used especially as they relate to modern Westen Society and Culture in such areas as economics (capitalism) law, morality, war, the family and war and the benefits of biblical scholarship? But there is no dearth of quotes against “Modernism” “Liberalism” from the popes of the late 19th and 20th centuries. It is almost as if for many here there has been no theological development in the Church since the death of Pius XII. So my question is the theology that seems to have been stuck and ostified in the 19th century really the authentic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?

So Mark, I believe the answer is all those who call themselves Catholic, especially those who participate in this forum, sincerely believe they are Catholic.

I agree with some of what you say (re the poor catechesis the past 100 years.) However we need to be careful not to disqualify those whom you believe “hide behind the Magesterium.” I don’t think they are as ignorant as you believe. While there may be those who do indeed do this, there are many others who have become involved and enveloped in their faith after much struggle and discernment. They have chosen to follow the Church, though it is not always easy. They have stepped out in faith which is a HUGE step. Lilberalism is always an easy ‘out’ as basically you can believe what you like. I believe that is precisely what Our Lord warned against when He spoke of “the world, the flesh and the devil.”
Frankly I’m puzzled by those who thumb their noses at Church teachings, yet somehow believe they are ‘good’ Catholics. Reminds me of the question, “if you were accused of being a Catholic, would there be enough evidence to convict you?” Good question, isn’t it?

We always need to remember that faith trumps intellectualism. Many of the saints were extremely poorly educated, but they had what was most important-an unwavering faith they were willing to die for. No, they likely couldn’t quote the writings of the Popes, etc. but they had something MUCH more important. This applies to Catholics these days, as well.

 

[Aquinas74]

So true, Aquinas. I’m wondering why SpiritMeadow and related put more faith in this troubled world and it’s weak, sinful people than in the Lord?? What do they intend to say to the Lord on Judgement Day?? I hope and pray that they begin to think about that. This world will pass; eternity is forever.

I can’t answer for her, but in this world of ours today it’s unpopular to speak the truth. Some people put there trust and hopes in men, I put my hope in Christ.

 

[iamrefreshed]

It must indeed feel wonderful to insult me knowing that I will be the one accused of being uncharitable. You may assume what you wish, since apparently you desire to do so. I shall continue to attend my parish as I always have and enjoy my faith, because I’m Catholic.

I’ve not insulted you. At least not intentionally.

If you are Catholic why do your beliefs disagree with the Pope’s, the Magisterium and the CCC?

I’m sorry if you don’t like the fact that I call you on it when you post information contrary to the CCC. That is your issue not mine.

Since you don’t believe scripture, I’m sure the words millstone and sea are one’s you could explain away through your personal revelations? Since you are spreading teaching contrary to the one true church, I would worry about those words.

I really hope you seek out good counsel from your priest and find out the truth.

PS…Do you have an issue with obedience and decide to call it ‘opinion’? I can understand that. It’s very common. I did it myself for awhile. Now I blindly (maybe stupidly to you) obey. I’m middle aged and stopped contracepting out of obedience. I don’t have to understand, I have to obey. I’m not smart enough to question God. He told me to be ‘childlike’. Try it, it’s a tremendous relief.

 

[Aquinas74]

I’ve not insulted you. At least not intentionally.

If you are Catholic why do your beliefs disagree with the Pope’s, the Magisterium and the CCC?

I’m sorry if you don’t like the fact that I call you on it when you post information contrary to the CCC. That is your issue not mine.

Since you don’t believe scripture, I’m sure the words millstone and sea are one’s you could explain away through your personal revelations? Since you are spreading teaching contrary to the one true church, I would worry about those words.

I really hope you seek out good counsel from your priest and find out the truth.

PS…Do you have an issue with obedience and decide to call it ‘opinion’? I can understand that. It’s very common. I did it myself for awhile. Now I blindly (maybe stupidly to you) obey. I’m middle aged and stopped contracepting out of obedience. I don’t have to understand, I have to obey. I’m not smart enough to question God. He told me to be ‘childlike’. Try it, it’s a tremendous relief.

Amen, I completely agree. There is a tremendous grace that comes with being obedient to Christ, it’s like a stone being lifted from your shoulders. God Bless You.

 

[minimom]

I’ve not insulted you. At least not intentionally.

If you are Catholic why do your beliefs disagree with the Pope’s, the Magisterium and the CCC?

I’m sorry if you don’t like the fact that I call you on it when you post information contrary to the CCC. That is your issue not mine.

Since you don’t believe scripture, I’m sure the words millstone and sea are one’s you could explain away through your personal revelations? Since you are spreading teaching contrary to the one true church, I would worry about those words.

I really hope you seek out good counsel from your priest and find out the truth.

PS…Do you have an issue with obedience and decide to call it ‘opinion’? I can understand that. It’s very common. I did it myself for awhile. Now I blindly (maybe stupidly to you) obey. I’m middle aged and stopped contracepting out of obedience. I don’t have to understand, I have to obey. I’m not smart enough to question God. He told me to be ‘childlike’. Try it, it’s a tremendous relief.

Amen! And so well said. God bless.

 

[bellesjoy]

No one can EVER give up their responsibility to individually discern truth, They are to be guided in every respect by church teaching, but we are not allowed to simply allow the Church to think for us. To say otherwise means no conscience can be properly formed unless in agreement with the Church. That is the Nuremberg Defense and is not licit. We’ve been through this a hundred pages of posts before and I don’t intend to engage in it again. We disagree. Nothing more to be said.

Except this: CCC 2039: **Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church. **

Pretty much shoots a rather large hole in your point.
While you can believe whatever you want and try to assign political agenda to the RCC, what you describe is not Catholic doctrine. If you don’t believe in the infallibility of the doctrines of the Church you are not Catholic, you are a member of your own religion.
If you don’t believe the RCC was founded by Jesus Christ and guided to this day by the Holy Spirit, then you aren’t Catholic. The Church is not a democracy. You don’t get to vote on doctrine or pick and choose.
No one says you have to believe anything, just don’t assign virtue to setting yourself above the Majesterium that Catholics recognize as guided by the Holy Spirit from the time of it’s institution by Christ. There is nothing more licit.

PS: the Nuremberg Defense refers to defense of crime. It is not a crime to follow Christ’s Church in moral teaching. It is a grace and sign of Christ’s love for use that He left us His Church. But you are right, you will never give up your responsiblity for what you do with the Truth that He left us.

 

[vz71]

I have no need to prove a thing.

Sure you do.
You made the positive assertion. It is up to you to do one of two things now. You can either back it up, or you can withdraw it.

Your credibility is in question there.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Do you dissenters (SpiritMeadow, patg, drpmjhess, etc) differentiate between what you consider infallible teachings of the church and what you consider changeable? Or do you even believe in infallibility at all? Not specifically papal infallibility, but the infallibility of the magesterium.

I thought that infallable teachings were only those declared so by the magisterium-such as those relating to our Lady. I recall something about the Pope speaking “ex cathedra” and it was then and only then that the teachings were considred infallable.

I’m not trying to be snarky or anything, I really do want to know if there is another infallibility doctrine that I was not aware of.

 

[Joe_5859]

I thought that infallable teachings were only those declared so by the magisterium-such as those relating to our Lady. I recall something about the Pope speaking “ex cathedra” and it was then and only then that the teachings were considred infallable.

I’m not trying to be snarky or anything, I really do want to know if there is another infallibility doctrine that I was not aware of.

The type of infallibility you are referring to is just one of the ways the Church teaches infallibly. It is the type put forward at the first Vatican Council.

If this was the only way something could be taught infallibly, that would mean that the only doctrines that we can be sure are without error are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. This would mean things like the number of sacraments, the canon of Scripture, and even the fact that God is a Trinity would still be up for grabs. That, of course, is not the case.

I found this article by Cardinal Bertone to be quite helpful it clarifying exactly what infallibility means in reference to Catholic teaching. Infallibility is often misunderstood by a great many people inside and outside of the Church. I had been looking for such a clear explanation for a while when a fellow CAFer posted this link in some other thread. I highly recommend it!