Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

[Fitswimmer]

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!

Thanks! I skimmed it-but it really deserves a more detailed read-which I will do tonight.

That’s always a subject that has baffled me a bit-so I’m thankful for the explanation.

 

[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.

And it still is.

 

[MarcellusW]

I do not have the particular page numbers and so forth at hand. These are matters I addressed some years ago when I was attending a Catholic college. I have no desire to pursuade as I find that that is essentially not possible here. Anyone can study these things, but I have no need to prove anything. I simply stated my opinion and what it was based upon.

You mistake me for the one doing the eye rolling and calling it “Spiritmeadow’s opinion.” Such is patently condenscending and moreover ludicrous. To suggest that I simply read the bible and come up with weird interpretations oot of my head is but a method of making nonsense of what I said. It’s a common practice here for some. I have been invited to do exactly that on many occasions. I have direct the person to the appropriate area to locate the information. I am not going to spend my time doing so, I’ve already done it. Ignore my posts if you find them so unuseful. I have done a ton of research on innumerable subjects for people here. Most has been rejected out of hand without even a cursory remark, so one learns to save one’s time.

As I said, look to the person who was so insulting to me before casting the stone at me my friend.

So basically what you are saying is that you wont change because you are perfect and haven’t done anything wrong.

To my plea for respect I get an upturned nose . If you cant act civily, you are not worth reading, espescially since you even say you dont care if anyone listens to you.

You are the first and hopefully the last to be on my ignore list.

 

[Aquinas74]

Perhaps this will also help, what the Code of Canon law says…

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I’ve had my issues with Spiritmeadow over the last year or so on these forums.

We disagree on many issues.

I don’t do so out of pride or some false sense of humility.

I do so because I am not that smart. My theology is limited. I have no degree, I’m a simple mind.

But I’m not so simple to believe myself above the teachings of those sent to lead me.

Tonight, I have had to watch my sister enter a drug/alcohol rehab center. It was brutal. All I could offer her was my own experience to obey God.

My faith is a daily struggle. I go to church EVERYDAY, not because I believe, but because I WANT to believe.

I do so out of obedience. Get it? I struggle with belief so I am obedient.

Jesus, I believe, help my unbelief.

 

[reggieM]

We are witnesses of these things, as is the holy Spirit that God has given to those who obey him."
Acts 5:32

Keep the faith & keep going to church daily. Tried for a while, your faith will grow abundantly.

I hope your sister is on the path to a full recovery. I’ll pray for her this evening.

 

[iamrefreshed]

We are witnesses of these things, as is the holy Spirit that God has given to those who obey him."
Acts 5:32

Keep the faith & keep going to church daily. Tried for a while, your faith will grow abundantly.

I hope your sister is on the path to a full recovery. I’ll pray for her this evening.

Thank you for your prayers!!!

 

[estesbob]

I’ve had my issues with Spiritmeadow over the last year or so on these forums.

We disagree on many issues.

I don’t do so out of pride or some false sense of humility.

I do so because I am not that smart. My theology is limited. I have no degree, I’m a simple mind.

But I’m not so simple to believe myself above the teachings of those sent to lead me.

Tonight, I have had to watch my sister enter a drug/alcohol rehab center. It was brutal. All I could offer her was my own experience to obey God.

.

You amd your sister will look back on this as the best day of her life. I can still vividly remember the day i walked into my first AA meeting .You and she are in my prayers

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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.

Hi,
Yes, there are other types of infallibility than just papal infallibility. The teachings of the ecumenical councils, for example, and considered infallible. Also if a teaching has been held consistently by all believers everywhere at all times, that is considered infallible too. I see someone posted a link for you with more details.

 

[bellesjoy]

And would the only litmus test for a conscience being properly formed be that it completely agrees with every church teaching? If so, then the process of forming it would seem to be a total waste of time and effort.

Not a waste of time, a gift from Jesus to you in the form of His Church to assist you in getting to heaven to be with Him. Carefully read the following and praise the Lord everyday for the gift of faith in His one true Church.

From the **CCC 2039: …**the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[MIZER]

I’m new to this thread so if you’ll all bear with my while I catch up. I see SoCalRC is here stiring the pot with his endless and mostly meaningless arguments.

Didn’t it start there? Look at the subject line.

Do we not all fail God in some way? Have you every been at a Mass when, in response to being invited to call to mind our unworthiness someone piped up, ‘Actually, I’m good…’?

As NewUlm noted, this is human nature. Certainly, the Lord knew this, why else would the Gospels warn us of the dangers of such thinking?

We should be rejoicing in what we share in the Body of the Faithful. But it is in our nature to judge others, a judgement that almost always concludes that we, ourselves, are morally superior!

One could turn the original question around, why have those who question the legitimate Catholicism of others forsaken our call to humbly follow God? But in judging others to be the Pharisee, we, ourselves, become pharisee like. The point remains for us to emulate the Publican

SoCalRC,

You seem to be one of the most argumentative posters on this board. I think if someone started a thread asking why we put milk on cereal you would argue that, “some people don’t, have you ever seen a toddler shoving cheerios into his mouth? Does he pour milk on them first? So the OP is wrong and blah blah blah.”

The OP of this thread was not asking about the sinfulness of the congregation nor the fact that human nature has a tendency toward sinfullness and I resent the implication that when we judge another’s behavior we are judging the soul of another and that this is human nature which stems from our idea that we are morally superior. This is a false argument and it has nothing to do with the OP’s question.

This sort of post hyjacks the thread and it is not productive. I’m surprised the moderators are allowing you to do this all over the board. When new posters come to the thread they have to wade through pages and pages of senseless arguing to find the posts that pertain to and coherently address the subject.

The OP is asking why people remain Catholic when they willfully reject infallible catholic teaching. During open intersessions at Mass people should not be soldiering for their anti-catholic political views nor should they be praying for and leading others to pray for the church to become “enlightened” and loose mortal sin on Earth and in heaven by calling evil, good. The Priest, wherever this is happening, should riegn in this sort of “prayer” or close the intercessions or do something to protect the integrity of the Mass. It is more than just a sinful human nature to reject infallible church teaching and the OP is outraged, as am I, that people continue to call themselves Catholic when they are clearly not. “Catholics for a free choice” comes to mind. (For the pro-aborts reading this I will translate the word choice, it means abortion on demand. Since the pro-aborts have such difficulty understanding their own language I will also define abortion: An act of violence that kills a child.) So called Catholics who believe a woman can righteously choose abortion are simply not Catholic. Making that statement does not mean I am judging anyone. It is simply a statement of fact. The OP’s question which began this thread is based on his confusion as to what would motivate such a person to remain Catholic. His question has been answered. Very simply it is the forces of evil which motivate. It is forever the intent of Satan to attack and rip apart the true body of Christ and so what better way than from within. SoCalRC aids that process by doing nothing more on this forum than inciting unrest and discension by his endless and seemingly pointless argumentativness. So now that you have been unvailed, SoCAlRC go ahead and continue your work here. You can state your argument as to why the pro-abort activists have every right to be members of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church and promote mortal sin from within the ranks.

 

[AnotherChance]

The Original Post was brilliant. I don’t have time to wade through all 330 posts since then, but a cursory glance show me that it is more of the same types of arguments that the OP was talking about.

I too was shocked when I came here to this forum and found that almost every thread that discussed anything remotely controversial was full of people debating issues that had already been settled by the Church.

As a convert, I just wanted to share that I had been drawn to the Catholic Church for many years, but resisted. My husband’s family is Catholic and mine was Catholic until two generations ago, so it was somewhat natural to bring the family back. One thing I believe that kept me away was the very issue in Catholicism that the OP brought out. I was looking into the Missouri Synod Lutheran, since they were conservative and proud of it.

Anyway, God wants me to be Catholic, but I have to wonder why people are Catholic if they don’t believe in the Church’s teachings?

 

[MIZER]

In post 18, NewUlm states the obvious:

All this is just human nature and I do not see any change in this. We were meant to disagree with each other at times.

We were not, however, meant to disagree with the teachings of Christ and the Apostles as they are taught through Apostolic succession by His one church.

I we disagree with the majority of the truth as taught by the church, a truth that is one in nature, then we are not Catholic. To be Catholic is to be One. In order to be One, we can’t pick what truths we will believe and what truths we will not believe. The truth is One. Therefore the body of faith is One and we must accept it all as a whole, or we as a body are not One. To have dissenters remain in the body causes fissure and disrupts unity.

The question is, why do people who disagree with the majority of the truth, as taught by the church, remain in her? If they think the church is wrong in her teachings then they must deny that she is the true church, so again, why do they stay? Why don’t they go to a church which teaches what they think is the truth?

 

[estesbob]

I’m new to this thread so if you’ll all bear with my while I catch up. I see SoCalRC is here stiring the pot with his endless and mostly meaningless arguments.

SoCalRC,

You seem to be one of the most argumentative posters on this board. I think if someone started a thread asking why we put milk on cereal you would argue that, “some people don’t, have you ever seen a toddler shoving cheerios into his mouth? Does he pour milk on them first? So the OP is wrong and blah blah blah.”

ks.

After first linking to a site that claims that cheerios arrent really cereal and that they are made by slave labor in secret plants run by the republican party.

 

[AnotherChance]

If they think the church is wrong in her teachings then they must deny that she is the true church, so again, why do they stay? Why don’t they go to a church which teaches what they think is the truth?

Excellent question! As a convert, one of the first Catholics I met as an adult was a young woman who was lying to her priest to hide the fact that she was living with her fiance, so that they could get married in the Catholic Church. My first thought was “If you don’t agree with the Church’s teachings, why do you so badly want to get married there?”

 

[patg]

Not a waste of time, a gift from Jesus to you in the form of His Church to assist you in getting to heaven to be with Him. Carefully read the following and praise the Lord everyday for the gift of faith in His one true Church.

From the **CCC 2039: …**the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

Well, like I said, if you don’t have a choice there is really no point in the “formation of conscience” since there is nothing to form and all applications of conscience simply translate to applying the infinite rules of the Church.

 

[patg]

Excellent question! As a convert, one of the first Catholics I met as an adult was a young woman who was lying to her priest to hide the fact that she was living with her fiance, so that they could get married in the Catholic Church. My first thought was “If you don’t agree with the Church’s teachings, why do you so badly want to get married there?”

I don’t understand why it is so hard for some to recognize that people naturally choose what they see is the best there is, regardless of whether or not they agree totally with every teaching. Does one not receive any good whatsoever from trying to belong? We all probably belong to other organizations from country clubs to countries with policies we may disagree with and yet we remain members because they are the best we have found and the possible benefits far outweigh the things we disagree with.

 

[MIZER]

estesbob,

Thanks for this one. This made me laugh out loud.

After first linking to a site that claims that cheerios arrent really cereal and that they are made by slave labor in secret plants run by the republican party.

As you are a senior member, I’m not surprised that you know SoCalRC even better than I. You are right on!!!

If I knew how to do it I’d add those rolling, laughing smilies.

I wonder where vern humphrey is. He would get a kick out of this.

 

[9Choirs]

I don’t understand why it is so hard for some to recognize that people naturally choose what they see is the best there is, regardless of whether or not they agree totally with every teaching. Does one not receive any good whatsoever from trying to belong? We all probably belong to other organizations from country clubs to countries with policies we may disagree with and yet we remain members because they are the best we have found and the possible benefits far outweigh the things we disagree with.

Pat G,

I understand where you are coming from with this. However, a question still remains. If there are dissidents/ Cafeteria Catholics who cannot align their beliefs fully with the Church yet remain in the Church as a means to belong to an institution, may I ask why some of these dissidents are so hell bound in changing the Church?

I would have little problem sitting next to a woman in Church who had 10 abortions, a practicing homosexual or a serial adulterer, but I draw the line when the aforementioned groups attempt to attack the Church from within by demanding she changes the unchangeable (doctrine) and thus creating more cracks within the Body of Christ.

I think the issue with many faithful/practicing/ Catholics in full communion in the Church such as the OP, is not that there are dissidents within the Church, but such dissidents are incredibly vocal about their dissent which scandalises many, in particular the young.

The fact remains: If such dissidents simply wanted to ‘belong’ to a Church in peace and harmony, they wouldn’t be moving mountains to instilling change in areas that are impossible to change. The campaign of change betrays the dishonesty that many (not all) dissidents are utilising in order to disguise their true wolves in sheep’s clothing character. There is an agenda and ‘wanting to belong’ isn’t one of them.

That being said, it seems times are changing and orthodoxy (as opposed to heterodoxy) is making a comeback, and its seems that many (vocal) dissidents are no longer fooling themselves and are simply moving onto Churches which teach moral values which does not prick their conscience.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/heterodoxy

heterodoxy

1. any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position

 

[reggieM]

The question is, why do people who disagree with the majority of the truth, as taught by the church, remain in her? If they think the church is wrong in her teachings then they must deny that she is the true church, so again, why do they stay? Why don’t they go to a church which teaches what they think is the truth?

I’ve been thinking about, studying and trying to understand dissenters for a long while now. I wouldn’t call myself an expert, but my diocese has a lot of dissenting Catholics (the majority of them are as such) and I’ve seen and talked and lived with them for years (not to mention those in my own family).

The question you ask is both the most obvious and most difficult. Why do they stay?

We can all think of reasons, but here are a few that I’ve come up with (not ranked in order of importance):

– They think that there’s some kind of prestige to being Catholic. So, they’ll accept the name and maybe go to Mass. But it’s like a religious country-club where you can go through the motions and dismiss any teaching you don’t like.

– They think that they have “the truth” and that the “institutional Church” doesn’t know what it’s doing. They think of the Church as a human institution only.

– This is not meant to be rude but … they’re ignorant of Catholicism. They haven’t suffered for it. It was a cultural or family tradition given to them on a silver-platter. The notion that Christ died for His Church and its pure, divine teaching is not considered or appreciated.

– They want to quiet their conscience. So, they’ll live in their sin (usually some kind of sexual sin) but then go to Church and consider themselves Catholic. This makes them feel better. Then they will say that the teachings of the Church are “wrong” so they’re ok with their behavior.

– They won’t go elsewhere because this means a religious committment. They would be publicly saying that their behavior is in conflict with Catholicism so they have to leave. That means taking the faith seriously, but that’s too much for them.

– They like to believe that God is going along with their dissent because they’re truly right and the “old man in Rome” doesn’t know. They’ll use all kinds of arguments to show that the Church changed in the past, so they’re just “prophets” of the truth today. The arrogance in this position should be obvious (there’s no humble submission to Christ to be found there, as much as it is pretended).

– They often put themselves in the infrastructure of the parish. This “proves” that they’re “good Catholics” so they have the “right” to dissent. These types “would never dream of leaving”.

– Basically, in almost all of these cases, they don’t believe that the Catholic Church teaches the divine truths of Christ. They contradict the explicit and fundamental teaching of Catholicism on this point. They believe that their own personal religion (their customized selection of dogmas) is better than Catholicism – but they won’t found their own churches because that is too difficult and serious.

– So, they lack courage and conviction at the deepest levels. They won’t pay the price that their dissent requires. They want a softer path – going through a show and masquerade by been seen at Mass, but interiorly rejecting the Catholic Faith.

– They lack honesty also. Part of this is because they’re rarely challenged. A lot of priests will support them and their conscience gets dulled over time. So they can’t honestly look at how they’re lying about their own embrace of the Catholic Faith (they’re not embracing and submitting to Christ’s teachings, but rather just picking what they like).

– They claim to be “reformers”. But when challenged by pointing out that there is an official process to follow when one believes a teaching is incorrect, they’ll claim that the hierarchy is corrupt and patriarchial so they couldn’t get a hearing. They sometimes submit objections to the Canonical Tribunal (as Call to Action did) but if they don’t get the answer that they want, they just continue to dissent as before.

– Their “addicted” in a sense. It’s like out of control, impulsive behavior that they can’t stop on their own. They need to be disciplined by an external force (namely bishops and priests) but that almost never happens so the addiction just persists and sometimes gets worse.

– In may cases, dissenters just stop going to Mass. They’ll still claim to be Catholic but they give up hope that the Church will change the way they want.

– Some rare few do leave and start their own churches or join Protestant sects. The women’s ordination dissenters have been excommunicated. They still won’t admit that they’re not Catholic though.