How does one go about disagreeing with the church...exactly?

[Setimet]

If a teaching has not been infallible defined and one has diligently informed themselves on a matter but disagrees–what then?

Are you kicked out? Do you register with a special committee for almost Catholics? Will that committee then send you a toaster or perhaps a lovely Merlot?

Seriously–I believe in the real presence, primacy of Peter, BVM, everything–except this onnnee teeny tiny thing.

To make matters worse, I’m starting to see that said teaching seems to truly be doing violence to people. Which is awful for those people–but worse for the church and its hierarchy. Something about corrupting children and millstones?

So is it perfectly ok and/or normal to disagree with the church? OR should I be trying to find another apostolic home?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

What is the “teeny tiny thing”?

 

[pianistclare]

One can’t really answer unless you say what the teeny tiny thing is. I doubt any church teaching is harming folks. That’s not the mission of the Church. They church is there to ensure that people are holy, and to help them get to heaven.
So…what’s your beef?

Whatever it is…you are doing yourself a disservice if you don’t research, read good material, and spend time discerning what it is that bothers you, and why.
None of the teachings of the church are offered capriciously.
Most of the time, when people disagree, it’s because they don’t know much about the subject in question.

You don’t have to tell me.
But I would strongly advise you to do more study.
Peace.

 

[Setimet]

But I would strongly advise you to do more study.

Studied for 8 months, spoke with two priests, learned Greek to read the new testament in its original form, traced the teaching through Catholic encyclicals, talked to a protestant pastor, read a bunch of books, watched a crippling number of hours of documentaries, listened to apologetic radio shows…but I haven’t stopped studying.

It was the Greek that really influenced me.

I’d prefer not to say the issue because I don’t want this thread to focus on arguing it.

Main thing is, it isn’t infallibly defined.

 

[Blessedwithfive]

I was always taught that we could disagree with church teaching with a well informed conscience. I would think you should still practice the faith, maybe you will change your mind, maybe not.

 

[coachdennis]

Studied for 8 months, spoke with two priests, learned Greek to read the new testament in its original form, traced the teaching through Catholic encyclicals, talked to a protestant pastor, read a bunch of books, watched a crippling number of hours of documentaries, listened to apologetic radio shows…but I haven’t stopped studying.

It was the Greek that really influenced me.

I’d prefer not to say the issue because I don’t want this thread to focus on arguing it.

Main thing is, it isn’t infallibly defined.

Without context (knowing what the issue is) an anonymous online website cannot help you.

BTW, why would you talk to a Protestant minister about teachings of the Catholic Church?

 

[ServusHumilis]

 

[DrTaffy]

Without context (knowing what the issue is) an anonymous online website cannot help you.

Why not? The question seems clearly phrased to me.

If there are some criteria other than the teaching not being ‘infallible’ that would influence the answer, could you say what they are? Or at least give an example?

BTW, why would you talk to a Protestant minister about teachings of the Catholic Church?

Why not? What is wrong with considering alternative points of view?

 

[bisco]

sounds like the o/p is looking for an escape claus for sin. you can do whatever you want, just be prepared for judgement.

 

[agnes_therese]

sounds like the o/p is looking for an escape claus for sin. you can do whatever you want, just be prepared for judgement.

The OP didn’t say any such thing. The discussion is about disagreeing. You can disagree with something without necessarily acting sinfully.

 

[Setimet]

Why not? The question seems clearly phrased to me.

If there are some criteria other than the teaching not being ‘infallible’ that would influence the answer, could you say what they are? Or at least give an example?

Well, it’s an issue that people in the church are already pretty divided on. People seem to classify it as more of a social justice or moral issue.

It isn’t any major piece of Theology.

Are there perhaps other criteria I could look at aside from infallibility? That would be helpful!

 

[Stephen_says]

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8063

Conscience and the Obedience of Faith

We must consider a common misconception: that is, that the faithful are under no obligation to accept or assent to a doctrine that is not taught infallibly. In 1998, Pope John Paul II’s motu proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem made a formal correction of this error by inserting clarifying verbiage into the Code of Canon Law. The following paragraph was added to Canon 750:

“Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church”

 

[Joe_5859]

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8063

Conscience and the Obedience of Faith

We must consider a common misconception: that is, that the faithful are under no obligation to accept or assent to a doctrine that is not taught infallibly. In 1998, Pope John Paul II’s motu proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem made a formal correction of this error by inserting clarifying verbiage into the Code of Canon Law. The following paragraph was added to Canon 750:

“Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church”

It is a popular misconception that Catholics only really need to accept Catholic teaching that has been explicitly declared to be infallible and that the rest is just “optional” stuff we can feel free to disregard. That is the wrong approach to Catholic doctrine.

That said, sometimes there are things (like limbo) that people think are part of the Catholic deposit of faith that really are not and never were. So it is pretty relevant exactly what it is that you are having an issue with. Is it something that is articulated in the Catechism?

Not that you have to answer to us. I understand your reticence to mention what that “teeny tiny thing” is because the thread would go off track with people trying to debate that issue with you. That’s a CAF guarantee.

For more info, the CDF gives some good insight that dovetails with John Paul II’s Ad Tuendam Fidem (the motu proprio that added the above paragraph to Canon 750). It’s on the Vatican website (about halfway down the page):

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

 

[tskrobacz]

If a teaching has not been infallible defined and one has diligently informed themselves on a matter but disagrees–what then?

Are you kicked out? Do you register with a special committee for almost Catholics? Will that committee then send you a toaster or perhaps a lovely Merlot?

Seriously–I believe in the real presence, primacy of Peter, BVM, everything–except this onnnee teeny tiny thing.

To make matters worse, I’m starting to see that said teaching seems to truly be doing violence to people. Which is awful for those people–but worse for the church and its hierarchy. Something about corrupting children and millstones?

So is it perfectly ok and/or normal to disagree with the church? OR should I be trying to find another apostolic home?

It is normal to disagree with the church on the road to enlightenment. The teachings are hard and not easily grasped by many/most. You can give up when you “disagree” and go elsewhere or persist in prayer and study until the truth comes more clearly into focus.

Put another way, your disagreement is much more likely based on a lack of understanding then a flaw in the church’s teaching.

 

[Jon_S_1]

If a teaching has not been infallible defined and one has diligently informed themselves on a matter but disagrees–what then?

Are you kicked out? Do you register with a special committee for almost Catholics? Will that committee then send you a toaster or perhaps a lovely Merlot?

Seriously–I believe in the real presence, primacy of Peter, BVM, everything–except this onnnee teeny tiny thing.

To make matters worse, I’m starting to see that said teaching seems to truly be doing violence to people. Which is awful for those people–but worse for the church and its hierarchy. Something about corrupting children and millstones?

So is it perfectly ok and/or normal to disagree with the church? OR should I be trying to find another apostolic home?

If it is not a dogma, or a doctrine of the church you can hold your own opinion on it.

If it is something the church widely teaches or comes down in a popes encyclical, then you should assent to it although you need not agree with it. What I see that meaning is you don’t undermine the church’s stance by advocating a position publicly oppossing it.

Such discussions are for private conversations amongst people who have the ability to change the teaching (pope and bishops and their theologians/ advisors of which you could be one)

I’m not sure how well that helps, and I’d encourage you to discuss with your priest and bishop.

When the Bible is removed from its teaching tradition it is easy to make mistakes even by reading the original language.

Imagine hearing that biology taught y in some professors textbook, then after reading it for yourself you thought it taught x. Would it be prudent to run with that or to go to the author of the textbook to find out what he meant by writing it that way?

In a simliar way, the church maintains the apostolic authors world view and oral teaching that should be considered alongside the written text.

 

[Setimet]

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8063

Conscience and the Obedience of Faith

We must consider a common misconception: that is, that the faithful are under no obligation to accept or assent to a doctrine that is not taught infallibly. In 1998, Pope John Paul II’s motu proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem made a formal correction of this error by inserting clarifying verbiage into the Code of Canon Law. The following paragraph was added to Canon 750:

“Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church”

Thank you for the info and document!

Am I reading the added paragraph correctly, that if something is definitively defined with treat it as if it were infallible? Or am I misunderstanding degrees and the concept of “firmly accepted and held”?

 

[Setimet]

It is a popular misconception that Catholics only really need to accept Catholic teaching that has been explicitly declared to be infallible and that the rest is just “optional” stuff we can feel free to disregard. That is the wrong approach to Catholic doctrine.

That said, sometimes there are things (like limbo) that people think are part of the Catholic deposit of faith that really are not and never were. So it is pretty relevant exactly what it is that you are having an issue with. Is it something that is articulated in the Catechism?

Not that you have to answer to us. I understand your reticence to mention what that “teeny tiny thing” is because the thread would go off track with people trying to debate that issue with you. That’s a CAF guarantee.

For more info, the CDF gives some good insight that dovetails with John Paul II’s Ad Tuendam Fidem (the motu proprio that added the above paragraph to Canon 750). It’s on the Vatican website (about halfway down the page):

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

It is in the Catechism. Question regarding 750:

Canon 750 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

1. When they ordinary Magisterium–that’s pretty much everything in any church document right?
2. Is there a difference between “bound to avoid any contrary doctrines” and “accepted and held.”

 

[Setimet]

If it is not a dogma, or a doctrine of the church you can hold your own opinion on it.

If it is something the church widely teaches or comes down in a popes encyclical, then you should assent to it although you need not agree with it. What I see that meaning is you don’t undermine the church’s stance by advocating a position publicly oppossing it.

Such discussions are for private conversations amongst people who have the ability to change the teaching (pope and bishops and their theologians/ advisors of which you could be one)

I’m not sure how well that helps, and I’d encourage you to discuss with your priest and bishop.

When the Bible is removed from its teaching tradition it is easy to make mistakes even by reading the original language.

Imagine hearing that biology taught y in some professors textbook, then after reading it for yourself you thought it taught x. Would it be prudent to run with that or to go to the author of the textbook to find out what he meant by writing it that way?

In a simliar way, the church maintains the apostolic authors world view and oral teaching that should be considered alongside the written text.

This makes a lot of sense to me. The reason I’ve talked to two priests is because the first one said he was “confused”, so I switched to someone who is said to “specialize” in the matter. I was stunned to discover he seems to know less than the first.

It makes sense that that I should just keep discussing it with the priest instead of…burning Catholic flags?..is that a thing?

Thank you.

 

[Joe_5859]

Yeah, definitely don’t burn your Catholic flags. We should be very slow towards such a course of action. I know that I am of limited, finite intellect and that I am quite susceptible to being wrong. So I wouldn’t lightly burn my Catholic bridges. There’s no need to be hasty.

I would encourage you to look at the CDF document I linked to earlier. It is probably the best explanation from a Church source on these types of “levels of assent” that I have come across.

For me, the basic take-away point is “Don’t look for loopholes.” We shouldn’t be Catholics who try to do and believe the bare minimum in order to retain the descriptor of “Catholic”. We ought rather to willingly embrace all that the Church offers us.

Of course, as you are experiencing, that doesn’t mean we don’t sometimes run into things we just cannot seem to make jive with our conceptual framework of the world. But the appropriate response is to seek understanding rather than turn tail and run. And that understanding doesn’t always come quickly. That’s okay.

 

[Tom_Baum]

One can’t really answer unless you say what the teeny tiny thing is. I doubt any church teaching is harming folks. That’s not the mission of the Church. They church is there to ensure that people are holy, and to help them get to heaven.
So…what’s your beef?

Whatever it is…you are doing yourself a disservice if you don’t research, read good material, and spend time discerning what it is that bothers you, and why.
None of the teachings of the church are offered capriciously.
Most of the time, when people disagree, it’s because they don’t know much about the subject in question.

You don’t have to tell me.
But I would strongly advise you to do more study.
Peace.

You wrote, “That’s not the mission of the Church. They church is there to ensure that people are holy, and to help them get to heaven”.

Jesus did NOT say that the “mission of the Church” was “to ensure that people are holy, and to help them get to heaven”, what He said was, “…and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It”.

I would say that Jesus told us that the mission of the Church was quite simple, profound and catholic.