Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

[reggieM]

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.

I think, really, that it’s hard to have to say that these people are shallow and dishonest.

Just in terms of common courtesy … the “country club” that we “disagree with” says that men must not wear shorts when going into the formal dining room.

Instead of asking for permission to wear shorts (and accepting the rule when it is said “no”) the man just breaks the rule. This is dishonest and shows no respect for all the members who follow the rule. Many do not want men wearing shorts in the dining room but they have to accept this guy who blatantly violates the rule. So even on human terms, it’s uncivilized behavior - contempt for law, and contempt for the organization itself.

Yes, you’re right to say that dissenters think that the Church is “the best we’ve got so far”. But that means that they’re judging the Church to be unworthy of its own claims. They place themselves in a higher authority than that of the Church which claims to give the divine teaching of Christ.

So really, the “best religion we’ve got” is the dissenter’s own religion – not Catholicism (in their view).

Why not start your own Church which is “better” than Catholicism.

The problem here is that you won’t have apostolic succession, a Pope, bishops, valid sacraments, etc.

So it’s a matter of fraud. It’s a counterfiet membership card to the club. Why? Well, I disagree with the price of the membership fee – it’s too expensive. But it’s the “best club we’ve got so far” (I want one that is cheaper but gives all the same benefits) – so, I counterfieted a membership card and forged my name on the list of donors. Now I can go to the club and not have to pay the fee.

Is that hard to understand? Not at all. Is it honorable, sincere, honest or truthful? No - it’s cheating, quite simply. It’s claiming that “the rules don’t apply to me – to all the other suckers, they have to obey, but God supports me in dissent because I’m different and better than them”.

It’s a different matter to admit “yes, I fall into sin a lot and I’m struggling to be a better Catholic”. Versus, “what I’m doing is not a sin even though my Church teaches that it is”.

 

[AnotherChance]

– 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.

I appreciated your list, as it helps me as a convert to understand what has been somewhat of a mystery to me: the non-Catholic Catholic. All of your reasons are valid, but I picked this above one out because it is so ironic yet sensible. If a person does not have a strong faith to begin with, they they won’t take it seriously enough to find a church that matches their beliefs.

I had a discussion with my mom (who is not a Catholic) recently about women’s ordination. I said why didn’t those who wanted to be ordained go to another church, since there are so many to choose from where women are ordained? She said “Because they are Catholic and they want to stay Catholic.” But if a woman wants to be ordained, is she really Catholic in the true sense of the word?

 

[MIZER]

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.

Patg,

We’re not talking about a country club or some other social organization, company nor the country or state we choose to live in. We’re talking about the Church, the Body of Christ. Christ is the truth. There is one faith which is that truth. If a member of the Body has a problem with this or that doctrine of faith then it is his moral obligation to spend his life trying to understand it better so he can embrace it better and thus increase his faith and build up the Body of Christ. It goes against that moral obligation and it only serves to tear down the Body of Christ to simply stand on our own ignorance, and willfully choose not to believe and it is a grave wrong to lead others to follow into our disbelief by fighting to make the church conform to us when it is the will of God, that we should conform to his church, the Body of Christ, His Son, Jesus, the truth.

 

[reggieM]

But if a woman wants to be ordained, is she really Catholic in the true sense of the word?

Excellent question. For myself, converts have taught me so much about this. A person does not make the sometimes-painful conversion to Catholicism by thinking “I hope it will change”.

Instead, it’s an embrace of the fullness of the Faith.

Actually, it’s like martyrdom. A lot of people will not like that example – but what does Christ teach us by dying on the Cross? It’s not a half-way thing. It’s a martyrdom of sorts for every Catholic – we have to die to ourselves and embrace obedience to God.

 

[Aquinas74]

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.

God Be with you, I will remember your sister and you in my prayers before the blessed sacrament. Also pray for the intercession of Saint Maximilain Kolbe, he is the patron saint of drug addicts. Again prayers out to you and your family.

 

[MIZER]

Reggie,

I really liked the way you turned the country club into an analogy. Well done.

 

[Aquinas74]

Found in the section of Canon Law entitled obligations of the Christian Faithful

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

Thats about as simple as things can be put.

 

[reggieM]

Thanks, Mizer.

I hope patg got something out of it also.

 

[Janet_S]

Dissenting Catholics need to grow up. They prefer their own opinions to real wisdom.

When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known. (1 Cor 13)

Why is it that so many dissenting Catholics constantly rebel against their Church, but have no problems agreeing totally with their political party?

One thing is for sure, dissenting Catholics with the mentality of “I know more than that crusty old Pope” will never advance in spirituality or grow in holiness.

Just read the saints. No hint of cafeteria Catholicism there.

 

[estesbob]

Reggie,

I really liked the way you turned the country club into an analogy. Well done.

An analogy that works only if one diminishes the Church to nothing more than a “club” To do so show such a profound lack of understanding of the Church that it makes further discussion nearly impossibly

 

[Janet_S]

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.

The purpose of conscience is to direct our actions according to objective norms, and it’s our duty to educate ourselves about the fine points of these norms. Conscience implies that there is a lawgiver, and that person is not ourselves. In other words, we don’t get to make up the rules.

If you violate a particular norm because you conscience isn’t formed properly, you are still violating that norm. Evil remains evil no matter what. Your conscience cannot turn an evil into a good.

As the Catechism says, we each should follow our conscience, but if we follow a faulty conscience, we still may be culpable for the sin we commit.

 

[patg]

Patg,

We’re not talking about a country club or some other social organization, company nor the country or state we choose to live in.

I’m not talking about those things either, I was merely stating the obvious fact that we all are part of organizations and that we rarely agree with every single principle of those organizations. However, we recognize (for whatever reason), that we are better off with them and because we haven’t found or experienced anything better.

We’re talking about the Church, the Body of Christ. Christ is the truth. There is one faith which is that truth. If a member of the Body has a problem with this or that doctrine of faith then it is his moral obligation to spend his life trying to understand it better so he can embrace it better and thus increase his faith and build up the Body of Christ.

I haven’t denied that. I also don’t assume that any amount of trying to understand is going to work with every person on every topic. On the other hand, expecting someone to assent in their heart to things their minds reject is pointless. It is only by sticking around, studying, and praying that one can attempt to resolve the issues, not by leaving.

It goes against that moral obligation and it only serves to tear down the Body of Christ to simply stand on our own ignorance, and willfully choose not to believe

I don’t willfully choose not to believe and I am not ignorant of what I am taught to believe*. *A statement like that is insulting and trivializes the process involved in coming to understanding of the truth. Maybe you should admit its easier for some than others.

At times, the dialectic between scholars and magisterium will involve impatient scholars who want to move too fast, leaving the magisterium (and most of the church) behind in the dust. But a great many of the faithful, in a post-scientific world, believe there are other ways. The faith of the faithful is evolving with the times in some ways that need not be feared or seen as evil, as with a moral failure like abortion. The times are changing, and yes, change merely for change’s sake should be avoided, but this doesn’t mean all change should be avoided, or we’d still be
living in monarchies instead of a democracy (and the church used to be against democracies, too) .

Other times, there will be members of the magisterium who will resist not only errors, but valid insights, and the church might have to wait for certain bishops and cardinals to die off before other minds and hearts are more open. Some members of the magisterium might secretly wish they could turn the hands of time back to the days when the bible was preached as literalistic history, or when women weren’t allowed into the temple. But perhaps they are realists, or pragmatists, or political enough, to know it would not work.

The church is a lively dialectic, Mizer. And the spirit blows where it will. Not always from the top down. The church believes this, has always believed it, and the church’s gospels reflect it.

and it is a grave wrong to lead others to follow into our disbelief by fighting to make the church conform to us when it is the will of God, that we should conform to his church, the Body of Christ, His Son, Jesus, the truth.

My disagreements on the role of women in the church, biblical interpretation, or sexual morality for example, do not affect you in the slightest nor do they affect my relationship with God. As a matter of fact, I am in complete obedience on the ordination issue - I haven’t ordained any women at all AND I haven’t worked against the Church for change at all - I’m happy to talk directly to God about it. If my issues lead others into disbelief then I doubt they ever seriously thought about their faith.

Is it your opinion that those with disagreements should leave? Just how does that lead them closer to the truth? I remember a saying that went something like “…its the sick who need the doctor, not the well…”.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

The fact that you cannot conceive of Jesus not starting a church in order to effect his purpose is not evidence. You are of course free ot believe what you wish. In either case, the teachings of Jesus remain the same.

Actually it matters a great deal if one is attempting to discern to the best possible extent what our Lord did in fact say and what he meant. If the words were added later in the form of Gospel writings by the respective writers, and were not the words of Jesus, then yes it means Jesus did not say them. It is unlikely that we have verbatim texts of what Jesus said, since the actual writings were not written down into a present form until nearly 40 years later. Additionally, we don’t have any copies of the originals, the most original copies we have are from around 200 CE I believe. We have no idea what changes occured during that time of course. It may be that the words are exact as Jesus spoke them, but then we have 4 different versions of some events, with him saying somewhat different things, so it’s hard to imagine that all 4 gospel writers recalled EXACTLY his words. They recorded it seems the tenor of what he said and what they thought he meant. There are copies of various NT and OT documents wherein the writer warned scribes NOT to tamper with the words, so big a problem was error in those days, diliberate and otherwise.

If you do not believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and the Bible therefore is divinely inspired as proclaimed by the Church, is your assent to Church teachings wholly intellectual?

Sorry it took a while to get back. I do not advocate a literal reading of the Bble, but I do advocate as a Christian that it is divinely inspired and that the Catholic Church assembled the Bible. IF it is divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, then the teachings are in accord with Jesus’ teaching for the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are One.

Again, I ask you what does it matter to the text whether it was added earlier or later if it is divinely inspired?

Your desire to parse the Bible based on research fails to take into account that scripture itself is holy for the Holy Spirit inspired it. Is this not a denial of the Holy Spirit or the unity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

You cast the terms in your favor. I do in fact place my first emphasis on Christ, as best I understand what he actually said, and what he meant. I give less emphasis to what the Church claims he said or meant. Make no mistake, I give the Church great deference, however i do not equate Jesus equally with the church as some do. So you are incorrect in your assumption. The Church is led by men. So it would be you I believe that would be placing all your faith in men, not I. I don’t confuse the church and Jesus. While I expect one to faithfully do its best to interpret what Jesus said and meant, I know I am required as a human created in God’s image to use what he gave me to address these issues as well. If I am convinced the Church is right, I assent, if I do not, i dissent. I trust the Holy Spirit corrects error over time.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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?

The fact that I do not agree with certain things in the CCC does not make me not Catholic. In fact, most Catholics in the US do not agree or follow all teachings of the Church. Under your personal definition, there are very few Catholics in the US.

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.

You did not call me on anything. I stated what my opinion was of a certain biblical statement in Mathew and when pressed explained why I believed so. I have no illusions that the CCC was different. I was not posting it as information and made it clear from the opening salvo that it was my opinion. Go back to the beginning of the discussion and you will see this.

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.

You have absolutely no basis for making that statement that I don’t believe in Scripture. We are not protestants. We do not believe that scripture is necessarily to be taken literally. I have said more than once these are not my personal revelations as you so meanly put them. I have given the basis for my opinions which are shared by many professional biblical experts. If they don’t convince you, so be it. You have no right to call me names. You continue to cast these aspersions upon me. I am teaching nothing. I am STATING AN OPINION AND THE BASIS OF THAT OPINION. You can continue in this vein all you wish, but it does not change my words.

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

Shocking as it may be to you, some of these very discussions have been held with a priest and religious in bible study classes sponsored by my parish. You might want to rethink your assumptions.

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.

I think Jesus had something a bit different in mind when he told us to approach faith like a child. But no matter, If you feel good being obedient without question, I am certainly not going to tell you you are wrong, but I would suggest it does not give you license to preach to me what I should do. I’m past the age of contracepting.

Can you find any Christian charity in your heart so that you can discontinue this most uncharitable manner of addressing me?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

No it does not at all. YOu might research other threads on this subject of say 4 or 5 months ago, There you will find all manner of papal statements wherein popes have expressed the necessity of never abandoning one’s personal conscience if one is convinced one is correct. It is purely common sense. I can imagine no Church that would declare that all must abandon their minds to the dictates of a Church. Such are usually referred to as cults and they usually end up badly.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

Nope, sorry, go back to the beginning. I said that it was my opinion and when pressed I gave the reasons why I believed so. i additionally gave some general direction to those who wished to pursue the matter further. I did not make a statement that in FACT Jesus made no such statement. I still have nothing to prove. Don’t believe it if you don’t wish to. I’m not asking for your assent.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

estesbob,

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

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.

explain to me the christian charity of bad mouthing another poster whom you don’t agree with to chuckle about with those whom you do? I can understand doing so in private messaging, but why do you feel the need to be so rude publically? A number of reasons come to mind, of course, but it would be uncharitable to pursue them i suspect.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Excellent question. For myself, converts have taught me so much about this. A person does not make the sometimes-painful conversion to Catholicism by thinking “I hope it will change”.

Instead, it’s an embrace of the fullness of the Faith.

Actually, it’s like martyrdom. A lot of people will not like that example – but what does Christ teach us by dying on the Cross? It’s not a half-way thing. It’s a martyrdom of sorts for every Catholic – we have to die to ourselves and embrace obedience to God.

I find your self-stated absorbtion in this issue fascinating. I imagine all the reasons you have come up with, most of which make dissenters quite nasty people, are true here and there. But of course, there are as many reasons as there are people in the end. Some undoubtedly think that the Church is as much theirs as yours, and some undoubtedly think that the church has strayed from truth, or has not managed quite yet to arrive at it. People have myriad reasons for remaining with a Church, and they are not all bad. You consider the Church yours, we consider it ours as well.

I can’t help but think that criticism of this type lends itself to self-congratulatory praise for being “right”. There is a just soo much of that on this forum. Humility is a dead issue here, and seems to be no where in evidence.

No one makes such a big hullabaloo about all this in the real world thankfully. There are but one or two in every parish it seems who drive everyone wild with worry about whose being orthodox enough for them. It makes for interesint conversation but really aren’t there better things to occupy time with like helping the poor and needy in our world?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Dissenting Catholics need to grow up. They prefer their own opinions to real wisdom.

Why is it that so many dissenting Catholics constantly rebel against their Church, but have no problems agreeing totally with their political party?

One thing is for sure, dissenting Catholics with the mentality of “I know more than that crusty old Pope” will never advance in spirituality or grow in holiness.

Just read the saints. No hint of cafeteria Catholicism there.

wow pretty big words for a mere human to utter. Dissenters (as you define them) “will never advance in spirituality or grow in holiness.”. You are now the judge huh? I can barely believe the uncharitible remarks casting so many people you barely know into such a bitter future. How do you do this? Special revelation?