Help! Catholic would-be drowning in doctrine!

[jmcrae]

Thank you. You have written (viz Pope Paul II) “True freedom is the ability to know and to do what is right.”

One has to consider this carefully. Am I truly free - do I have free choice, do I have true freedom - if I anticipate, know, am told, that the Church will tell me all I need to know? Am I strong as a Christian because I am fed? Do I have to fight for my belief? No.

I don’t really understand the question. We are free when we know how to choose what is right.

We are slaves to the prevailing culture and to our personal opinions when we don’t know what is right, and when we don’t know how to choose what is right. We become most free when we actually choose the good - when we are no longer subject to our own opinions and the opinions of the neighbors on our street, or the advertisers on our TV, radio, etc.

To give an example, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta no doubt had many personal opinions about the lepers, drug addicts, and beggars that surrounded her. But she put aside her personal opinions, and she did what the Church taught her to do - she loved them like she loves Christ, and she shared her abundance with them until it was gone, and then she shared her poverty with them, and it was enough.

In choosing to do right, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta became free. She could travel to any country in the world, and other people would pay her way, just so they could be in the same room with her. When she spoke in public, no one cut short her time, or contradicted her. She remained free because she did not let her freedom go to her head. She kept on doing the right thing, and because she never stopped doing the right thing, she always remained free.

Will I develop the ability to ‘know’, either through study or through experience? I do not think so: I will leave that to those who truly ‘know’ because they are divinely inspired, or because they know what the Magisterium, CCC, etc, say is true.

None of us can know everything. But we can know the things that pertain to our own state in life, and we can choose what we know to be good. (Nobody in their right mind would choose what they knew to be bad, I don’t think.)

Do I have true freedom to do what is right? CCC quoted above tells us about mass, Eucharist, baptism, etc., but what does it tell me, not about the correct ritual, not about the things I should not do, but about what I as a Christian must do if I am responsible and consciously in Christ.

If you read the rest of the Catechism, you will see that it covers every subject; not only the subjects that pertain to the Sacraments.

I know it is not right to try to balance out a Pope, but the questions must be asked because I presumably have true freedom to do so.

Questions are part of the process.

Remember the proper order of things - don’t answer the question until you know what the question really is. And don’t ask the question until you have seen all sides of the subject.

See first. Then ask. Then answer.

 

[nerfherder]

uh huh I’m sure you’ve been around CAF long enough to have heard of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott. Between that and the Catechism anyone with a couple of brain cells should be able to have their dogma sorted pretty quick smart.

The point made, which I am sure you understood, was that in practice - outside the theory of Dr Ott and other famous Catholic theologians and the CCC - many Catholics do not use their two brain cells to sort out their dogma. They are satisfied with the obligatory ritual which is some kind of guarantee, no? This is what is troublesome for some of us who seek a foundation for Christian life - life in Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

The point made, which I am sure you understood, was that in practice - outside the theory of Dr Ott and other famous Catholic theologians and the CCC - many Catholics do not use their two brain cells to sort out their dogma.

How do you know?

Maybe they did so years ago, when they were in school, but right now are just living out their lives, raising their kids, doing their work, etc., and not as involved in those kinds of conversations any more?

They are satisfied with the obligatory ritual which is some kind of guarantee, no?

If you listen to the words of the ritual, you will learn a great deal of theology. And yes, it provides real graces for those who are properly disposed to receive them.

This is what is troublesome for some of us who seek a foundation for Christian life - life in Christ.

I am not seeing any conflict - after all, it is Christ who gave us the rituals.

 

[mchium]

What you have to accept is that the Catholic Church has been given authority by Jesus Christ to carry out the Great Commission:

“Go into the world and preach the Gospel, baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all I have commanded.”

Once you have embraced the Authority of the Catholic Church, then everything else falls into place. You accept all the doctrines, even those you haven’t heard yet.

My husband and I were evangelical Protestant for over 40 years. Once we accepted Authority of the Catholic Church, we accepted everything else. We trust in Jesus to keep His Church.

HEAR ! HEAR !! Thank God :extrahappy: for the wonderful converts He brings home :bounce: !! I am a 60+ year old ‘cradle Catholic’ and couldn’t agree more or have said it better.

This is the beauty of the economy and simplicity of the mighty and eternal Father and the Holy Trinity…you submit your will and intellect to Jesus, through His Church…and don’t worry. As it goes, so will you…

If you couldn’t really ‘feel’ Catholic until we had memorized, acknowledged, understood and kept a running list in our heads, of all the dogma, doctrine and whatever else, we’d ALL drown (and burn out!!) :whacky: :whacky:

 

[mdcpensive1]

Nerfherder,

One thing that I have not heard discussed in this thread is the “call to Holiness” as written in the Vatican II documents (Lumengentium-I believe). We come into the Church as children not knowing what to expect. We are to have faith that we are being guided properly and truthfully by our Church as we come to understand more and more of the revelation given to us by the grace of God. We have no knowledge test to pass in order to get into heaven but our hearts have to be pure and full of grace. Our job is to grow into Holiness and our learning is just a part of that which confirms our beliefs.
I have had problems too in the past of devoting much time in apologetics and study and sometimes neglecting my prayer life. Talking to God is a wonderful way for the soul to grow in grace.

mdcpensive1

 

[nerfherder]

This is the beauty of the economy and simplicity of the mighty and eternal Father and the Holy Trinity…you submit your will and intellect to Jesus, through His Church…and don’t worry. As it goes, so will you…

If you couldn’t really ‘feel’ Catholic until we had memorized, acknowledged, understood and kept a running list in our heads, of all the dogma, doctrine and whatever else, we’d ALL drown (and burn out!!) :whacky: :whacky:

Posted by Cat: You accept all the doctrines, even those you haven’t heard yet.

Oh gosh mchium! This may be true for a religion; it is also true for fundamentalist political movements and regimes.

Can you really, truly believe this? I mean, I am sure that it might make one happy if one could be content to simply obey (‘Simply obey, Simply obey, For there’s no other way’ was a hymn we sang in the olden days). But for some - the Catholic theologian Henri Nouwen for example - it is not possible and there is a woundedness, a constant seeking, and in the end strength.

As an historian, I am always aware that religions rise and fall. Christianity, and Catholic Christianity in particular, has a good 2000 year-old track record. Will it go on forever if there is no seeking, questioning and understanding through negotiation among both lay and religious? If we give over in all aspects to the Church as institution, and trust and obey?

Finally, I am aware also that this discussion is all about the Church as an institution/organisation. Where does Christ come into all this? Is the Church always interlocutor between me and doctrine which means that I finally get to Christ through priest, through doctrine, through Church? If I give over to Church and doctrine, what is my relationship with Jesus of Nazareth, Christ my Lord?

 

[nerfherder]

Nerfherder,

One thing that I have not heard discussed in this thread is the “call to Holiness” as written in the Vatican II documents (Lumengentium-I believe). We come into the Church as children not knowing what to expect. We are to have faith that we are being guided properly and truthfully by our Church as we come to understand more and more of the revelation given to us by the grace of God. We have no knowledge test to pass in order to get into heaven but our hearts have to be pure and full of grace. Our job is to grow into Holiness and our learning is just a part of that which confirms our beliefs.
I have had problems too in the past of devoting much time in apologetics and study and sometimes neglecting my prayer life. Talking to God is a wonderful way for the soul to grow in grace.

mdcpensive1

Thank you for this insight.

 

[jmcrae]

Posted by Cat: You accept all the doctrines, even those you haven’t heard yet.

Oh gosh! This may be true for a religion; it is also true for fundamentalist political movements and regimes.

I think (I hope) that what she means is, having looked at the Saints, having read the Scriptures and other documents, having investigated the questions that have come to mind, and having discovered through practical discovery that the Church is right on those issues, we don’t worry about the things we haven’t thought of yet, since the Church has already proven herself on the test issues that you did think of.

Think of the things you do trust.

For example, when you hire an employee, you read his resume, contact his references, and interview him. If he needs to have a certain skill, you test him on that skill for half an hour, or up to two hours, depending on what the skill is that he absolutely needs to have.

But, you don’t expose him to every single situation possible before hiring him. You just test him in certain key areas, and when he passes all of those tests, you simply trust that he knows what he’s doing, you hire him, and then get back to work, passing those portions of it to him that pertain to him, trusting that he will be able to do it without too much intervention from you.

When looking at the Church, it’s the same thing. You look at the Saints that she has produced (references), you look at her resume (the Scriptures, the Early Fathers, the Creeds, the Catechism, and other documents of the Church), you test her on certain key issues, and then arrive at a conclusion, trusting that everything else will be up to the same standards, without having to test every single and last little thing beforehand.

 

[mchium]

Posted by Cat: You accept all the doctrines, even those you haven’t heard yet.

Oh gosh mchium! This may be true for a religion; it is also true for fundamentalist political movements and regimes.

Can you really, truly believe this? I mean, I am sure that it might make one happy if one could be content to simply obey (‘Simply obey, Simply obey, For there’s no other way’ was a hymn we sang in the olden days). But for some - the Catholic theologian Henri Nouwen for example - it is not possible and there is a woundedness, a constant seeking, and in the end strength.

As an historian, I am always aware that religions rise and fall. Christianity, and Catholic Christianity in particular, has a good 2000 year-old track record. Will it go on forever if there is no seeking, questioning and understanding through negotiation among both lay and religious? If we give over in all aspects to the Church as institution, and trust and obey?

Finally, I am aware also that this discussion is all about the Church as an institution/organisation. Where does Christ come into all this? Is the Church always interlocutor between me and doctrine which means that I finally get to Christ through priest, through doctrine, through Church? If I give over to Church and doctrine, what is my relationship with Jesus of Nazareth, Christ my Lord?

Yup…I really truly believe it. I can’t give you a response/answer that will satisfy you, so can only confirm your interpretation of my words. Definitely!

Beyond the above, all I can say is that for me (I’m in my 60’s and have studied theology, my faith, all faiths, philosophies, metaphysics, aalllll that all my adult life). For me, it’s pretty much a ‘been there, done that’…and I’ve found my way to absolute belief. What can I say??

 

[Greg27]

Posted by Cat: You accept all the doctrines, even those you haven’t heard yet.

Oh gosh mchium! This may be true for a religion; it is also true for fundamentalist political movements and regimes.

Can you really, truly believe this? I mean, I am sure that it might make one happy if one could be content to simply obey (‘Simply obey, Simply obey, For there’s no other way’ was a hymn we sang in the olden days). But for some - the Catholic theologian Henri Nouwen for example - it is not possible and there is a woundedness, a constant seeking, and in the end strength.

As an historian, I am always aware that religions rise and fall. Christianity, and Catholic Christianity in particular, has a good 2000 year-old track record. Will it go on forever if there is no seeking, questioning and understanding through negotiation among both lay and religious? If we give over in all aspects to the Church as institution, and trust and obey?

Finally, I am aware also that this discussion is all about the Church as an institution/organisation. Where does Christ come into all this? Is the Church always interlocutor between me and doctrine which means that I finally get to Christ through priest, through doctrine, through Church? If I give over to Church and doctrine, what is my relationship with Jesus of Nazareth, Christ my Lord?

I think if one looks over the history of the Catholic and the Christian church one can see the Church adapts itself to the cultural and intellectual situations it finds itself in. The Greek and Latin fathers of the first five centuries for example, adapted and modified the dominant philosophy of the time (Neo-Platonism) and incorporated it into the Church, whereas Aristotle was ‘baptised’ in the 12th century by Aquinas and others, and later on there was the response to the Reformation and the rise of science, and now the church is faced with the challenges of a pluralistic, globalised world where for the first time we are aware fully of the depth and value of the quests for God or the Absolute which exist in the world’s other main religions, one of which is non-theistic (Buddhism).

Clearly I think there has been change and change will need to continue, and a historical awareness of the church shows the church adapts itself (as to other human institutions) in order to be relevant and to survive, and the church five centuries from now will probably look quite different from what it is now.

 

[nerfherder]

I think if one looks over the history of the Catholic and the Christian church one can see the Church adapts itself to the cultural and intellectual situations it finds itself in. The Greek and Latin fathers of the first five centuries for example, adapted and modified the dominant philosophy of the time (Neo-Platonism) and incorporated it into the Church, whereas Aristotle was ‘baptised’ in the 12th century by Aquinas and others, and later on there was the response to the Reformation and the rise of science, and now the church is faced with the challenges of a pluralistic, globalised world where for the first time we are aware fully of the depth and value of the quests for God or the Absolute which exist in the world’s other main religions, one of which is non-theistic (Buddhism).

Clearly I think there has been change and change will need to continue, and a historical awareness of the church shows the church adapts itself (as to other human institutions) in order to be relevant and to survive, and the church five centuries from now will probably look quite different from what it is now.

I agree with you absolutely. If you read the 1993 Vatican publication, introduced by JPII and written by Cardinal Ratzinger, you will find a history during this century of ‘how we read the Bible’. Again, there have recently been established synods for the various regions of the world, to examine the particular growth and focus of faithful in very different circumstances. And so on.

However, I think you will find that there are very many people on this Forum who would disagree with this forumlation: the original 2000 year-old words of the sacred scriptures still stand. The Church is monolithic.

I believe firmly that my understanding, and that of other Africans of all ethnic backgrounds - white, black, Indian, coloured, north African, southern Africa region - of doctrine differs significantly from that of Catholics in Asia, for example, who have a completely different life experience and mental landscape.

Therefore what I choose for my principal set of beliefs, in my life as a Catholic (I cannot choose all doctrine and dogma) will reflect my own cultural milieu.

 

[nerfherder]

I think (I hope) that what she means is, having looked at the Saints, having read the Scriptures and other documents, having investigated the questions that have come to mind, and having discovered through practical discovery that the Church is right on those issues, we don’t worry about the things we haven’t thought of yet, since the Church has already proven herself on the test issues that you did think of.

Think of the things you do trust.

For example, when you hire an employee, you read his resume, contact his references, and interview him. If he needs to have a certain skill, you test him on that skill for half an hour, or up to two hours, depending on what the skill is that he absolutely needs to have.

But, you don’t expose him to every single situation possible before hiring him. You just test him in certain key areas, and when he passes all of those tests, you simply trust that he knows what he’s doing, you hire him, and then get back to work, passing those portions of it to him that pertain to him, trusting that he will be able to do it without too much intervention from you.

When looking at the Church, it’s the same thing. You look at the Saints that she has produced (references), you look at her resume (the Scriptures, the Early Fathers, the Creeds, the Catechism, and other documents of the Church), you test her on certain key issues, and then arrive at a conclusion, trusting that everything else will be up to the same standards, without having to test every single and last little thing beforehand.

My experience on the Forum suggests that various individuals here have different understandings of what comprises their faith, and are unwilling to allow for differences in perception, differences in explanations or understandings, particularly among those who have converted one way or the other. It is often the converts who are the most vociferous.

It seems that virtually every individual has his or her own set of doctrinal beliefs, based on scripture, with which (one hopes) to go about one’s Christian life. Sometimes, sadly, those particularistic beliefs are used to thump others who have not come up with the same set of understandings.

This is a problem.

 

[BelFarfalla]

My experience on the Forum suggests that various individuals here have different understandings of what comprises their faith, and are unwilling to allow for differences in perception, differences in explanations or understandings, particularly among those who have converted one way or the other. It is often the converts who are the most vociferous.
It seems that virtually every individual has his or her own set of doctrinal beliefs, based on scripture, with which (one hopes) to go about one’s Christian life. Sometimes, sadly, those particularistic beliefs are used to thump others who have not come up with the same set of understandings.
This is a problem.

Isn’t this the case in all of Christianity? The way I look at it is that being a Catholic is an life long endeavor. I have often found that my personal beliefs have contradicted Church doctrine. I used to be very lazy about this and just assume that my view had validity over that of the Church. In more recent years I have taken the time to investigate the Church’s doctrine on the topics on which I disagreed. I have yet to fine one topic, after studying the Church’s view that I disagree with. Sometimes it has taken me a long time to come to agreement with the Church. Certainly the 20 year old me in the 1970’s was not wise enough to realize how wrong many of the popular beliefs of my generation were. It’s a journey, the destination is heaven. We need to give people room to evolve.
Those who use their ‘particularistic beliefs…to thump others’ are wrong. But that is on them not on us. Each of us is responsible for our own journey.

 

[jmcrae]

I think if one looks over the history of the Catholic and the Christian church one can see the Church adapts itself to the cultural and intellectual situations it finds itself in. The Greek and Latin fathers of the first five centuries for example, adapted and modified the dominant philosophy of the time (Neo-Platonism) and incorporated it into the Church, whereas Aristotle was ‘baptised’ in the 12th century by Aquinas and others, and later on there was the response to the Reformation and the rise of science, and now the church is faced with the challenges of a pluralistic, globalised world where for the first time we are aware fully of the depth and value of the quests for God or the Absolute which exist in the world’s other main religions, one of which is non-theistic (Buddhism).

Clearly I think there has been change and change will need to continue, and a historical awareness of the church shows the church adapts itself (as to other human institutions) in order to be relevant and to survive, and the church five centuries from now will probably look quite different from what it is now.

What we see are differences in the languages that we use to express ourselves, but there is no difference in the content of the message itself.

For example, Aristotle had many beliefs that go contrary to the ancient teachings of the Church (one thing he believed was that child exposure is an acceptable means of population control, if chemical or physical contraception and abortion have failed - the Church, of course, has always forbidden all forms of population control) - in taking on his system of logic as a means of communicating with a new generation of Renaissance thinkers, we did not also take on those opinions of his that go contrary to the on-going teachings of the Church.

In using the language of pluralism today, we don’t thereby take on the beliefs that attend pluralism, either. We continue to teach and believe what we have always taught and believed, but we frame it in language that can be understood by our wider culture.