Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

[Contarini]

That’s interesting… that’s how I chose the Catholic Church… using the protestant model! Does that mean I’m not a real Catholic?

Well, my opinion on this doesn’t mean much. From where I stand, if you’re in full visible communion with the Catholic Church, you’re a Catholic!

But this is precisely one of the reasons I have not become Catholic. If I were starting out to “pick a church” I would become Catholic. But my heritage is Wesleyan (the broad tradition, not the denomination) and my affiliation is Anglican (based on a choice I made 10 years ago–partially following this “Protestant model,” but also based on the fact that the Wesleys never left Anglicanism and that there was a dynamic, orthodox, Anglo-Catholic Episcopal parish near me).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Why?

Primarily because Catholic Answers are not the Magisterium. I would have hoped that that was obvious!

The real Magisterium would never do something like this, I’m quite sure. One’s degree of “Catholicity” cannot be quantified.

Edwin

 

[reggieM]

And in the second place, you are assuming a Protestant model for “choosing a Church.” In this model (not that all Protestants do this–I try not to, but I’m odd), one decides what one believes and then looks around for a church that fits those beliefs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[reggieM]

Primarily because Catholic Answers are not the Magisterium. I would have hoped that that was obvious!

The real Magisterium would never do something like this, I’m quite sure. One’s degree of “Catholicity” cannot be quantified.

Edwin

Ok, but I think you’re mistaken here. The Magisterium includes the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, along with the Supreme Canon Law tribunal.

Without judgements on the Catholicity of its members, it would be a lawless, anarchist system.

The faithful have a right to have laws interpreted correctly and justly. Certainly, a teacher who violates the orthodoxy of the Church has to be suspended – as sadly, several (but not enough in my opinion) have been in the past 40 years.

But whether a group of laypeople or even priests here on a forum can correctly judge whether someone is a heretic or not – that’s a problem, true.

In some cases, though, it’s blatantly obvious – and a person proclaims her lack of Catholicity.

Our Lord warns us to discern and not to follow false prophets. We do that with the help of our priests and confessors – but we also have to make good judgements in the world.

As an extreme example (sadly, not that far fetched) – a Catholic, for example, who proclaims that pedophilia should be legalized and permitted is “lacking Catholicity” in the moral realm.

It would be essential for Catholic parents to object to such a teacher being hired in a Catholic school, for example.

I would object to someone with the belief system of Spiritmeadow from teaching children in a Catholic school also.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The only problem I have with your analysis is that we have no originals of any of the books.

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

 

[Contarini]

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

Well no. Protestantism is not identical with relativism or modernism. There are people who decide to believe something for frivolous or arbitrary reasons. But it is unfair to claim that Protestants in general do this.

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

That is what I mean by the “Protestant model.”

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

No, I said nothing of the kind. I said the exact opposite. I applaud Spiritmeadow for not making decisions about church membership on that basis.

Edwin

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Well, my opinion on this doesn’t mean much. From where I stand, if you’re in full visible communion with the Catholic Church, you’re a Catholic!

But this is precisely one of the reasons I have not become Catholic. If I were starting out to “pick a church” I would become Catholic. But my heritage is Wesleyan (the broad tradition, not the denomination) and my affiliation is Anglican (based on a choice I made 10 years ago–partially following this “Protestant model,” but also based on the fact that the Wesleys never left Anglicanism and that there was a dynamic, orthodox, Anglo-Catholic Episcopal parish near me).

Edwin

Oh well, I was brought up Catholic, but chose to stay with Catholicism using the protestant model, so I guess either way I’m covered

 

[Contarini]

Ok, but I think you’re mistaken here. The Magisterium includes the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, along with the Supreme Canon Law tribunal.

Without judgements on the Catholicity of its members, it would be a lawless, anarchist system.

That is not my point. My point is that the degree of orthodoxy can’t be given a percentage. The CDF doesn’t say “Avery Dulles is 95% Catholic; Gustavo Gutierrez is 80% Catholic; Hans Kung and Richard McBrien are 50% Catholic; and Mary Daly is 10% Catholic.” Rather, it censures or corrects or disciplines people insofar as they violate the teaching of the Church, without passing such sweeping and quantifiable judgments on their general “Catholicity.”

And a fortiori a lay apologetics organization should not take it upon itself to make such judgments.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Oh well, I was brought up Catholic, but chose to stay with Catholicism using the protestant model, so I guess either way I’m covered

I am not saying that we simply disregard our beliefs about what is true. Rather, I’m saying that these beliefs do not arise in a vacuum, and that one cannot simply go through a “matching” process of figuring out which tradition best fits our pre-acquired beliefs. Religious traditions shape our beliefs in the first place, and that’s as it should be. We frequently fight with our traditions, and that again is as it should be. Obviously if we come to the point where we can no longer maintain faith in the most basic principles of our tradition, then we have to look elsewhere. But it is very impudent to suggest to someone else that they are at that point.

Edwin

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I am not saying that we simply disregard our beliefs about what is true. Rather, I’m saying that these beliefs do not arise in a vacuum, and that one cannot simply go through a “matching” process of figuring out which tradition best fits our pre-acquired beliefs. Religious traditions shape our beliefs in the first place, and that’s as it should be. We frequently fight with our traditions, and that again is as it should be. Obviously if we come to the point where we can no longer maintain faith in the most basic principles of our tradition, then we have to look elsewhere. But it is very impudent to suggest to someone else that they are at that point.

Edwin

Well, here’s why some of us would suggest such a thing to some people:

There’s a huge disconnect in the church between what is taught by the Magisterium and what Catholics in North America have come to believe the church teaches. It’s like schizophrenia or cognitive dissonance.

Some of us are angry that liberals religion classes and catechism classes and parish bible studies and taught us and other catholics lies and passed them off as Church teaching. We’re working to correct that my pointing out to people when their ideas are not in line with actual church teaching.

We have a right to be angered by people who spread lies, and to point them out.

 

[Contarini]

Well, here’s why some of us would suggest such a thing to some people:

There’s a huge disconnect in the church between what is taught by the Magisterium and what Catholics in North America have come to believe the church teaches. It’s like schizophrenia or cognitive dissonance.

Some of us are angry that liberals religion classes and catechism classes and parish bible studies and taught us and other catholics lies and passed them off as Church teaching. We’re working to correct that my pointing out to people when their ideas are not in line with actual church teaching.

We have a right to be angered by people who spread lies, and to point them out.

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

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

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

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

 

[guanophore]

I understand and I’m not referring to that.

Saying that some of that interpretation may have to be altered based on new knowledge in no way implies your “all or nothing” assumption. The church has altered its interpretation of God’s moral laws - for example, most of Leviticus was quiet conveniently discarded.

This statement does not make any sense to me at all. First of all, the bulk of the Levitical laws were not moral but cultural. Secondly, the Church was NEVER bound by them. We can see clearly in the book of Acts that Gentiles were not expected to live as Jews. How can something that was never adopted be “discarded”?

I already did yesterday but here is a repeat:

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.

Clearly you have a misunderstanding about the “direct commands of God”. Some of God’s commandments are meant for specific individuals, and are not to be applied to everyone. When Jesus told Judas to “go quickly and do what you must”, He did not mean that every disciple should betray Him. Neither did He mean that every disciple needed to sell all that they have.

We have no recorded or passed on traditions of Jesus giving dietary restrictions for His disciples to follow. On the contrary, He empowered His Apostles with the power to make rules, and they ruled that the Levitical laws do not apply.

 

[drpmjhess]

And does Catholic Answers get to decide what counts as “Catholic”? I would hope that most Catholics would be very upset by such a proposal.Edwin

Quite true. The Church is a “big tent,” in which the Holy Spirit moves in mysterious ways. A living Church is open to both tradition and change, and those who are uncomfortable with faithful and loyal dissent are looking for a Church that doesn’t exist.

 

[reggieM]

those who are uncomfortable with faithful and loyal dissent are looking for a Church that doesn’t exist.

I’m uncomfortable with unfaithful and disloyal dissent – as the Church has always been since the time of Christ and the apostolic era.

 

[reggieM]

I understand this. In fact, it’s one of the things that put me off becoming Catholic in 1999. The misrepresentation of Catholic teaching, the illogical thinking, the loose citation of Church documents to make them say what you want them to say–I saw it all and I understand why people are frustrated with them.
But a feeling of frustration is not a rational justification. If the Catholic Church is true, then it’s got to be bigger than anyone’s opinions. Clearly liberal Catholics recognize this by the fact of remaining Catholic even though they disagree. I honor them for that. I’m concerned that many “conservative” Catholics are deeply influenced by conservative Protestantism and American individualism generally, and are importing a lot of the weaknesses of sectarian Protestantism into Catholicism (just as liberals are importing other Protestant ideas into Catholicism).
Why do I care? Because I think the Catholic Church may be what it claims to be, and is at the very least central to any hope of reuniting a significant portion of Christendom.
Edwin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[drpmjhess]

I’m uncomfortable with unfaithful and disloyal dissent – as the Church has always been since the time of Christ and the apostolic era.

Loyal and faithful dissent will always be with us; that’s role of the agent of change in the dynamic tension between tradition and change. But at least the Church no longer burns its dissenters at the stake!

 

[LRThunder]

Faithful and loyal dissent is a contradiction…at least disagreement with doctrine and dogma. One can have differing views on discipline, but we’re to accept doctrine and dogma as the Church has taught.

 

[drpmjhess]

Faithful and loyal dissent is a contradiction…at least disagreement with doctrine and dogma. One can have differing views on discipline, but we’re to accept doctrine and dogma as the Church has taught.

It’s not a contradiction at all.

 

[reggieM]

Loyal and faithful dissent will always be with us;

That could be true – maybe somewhere out there it exists. I’ve never seen it myself.

But at least the Church no longer burns its dissenters at the stake!

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