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

[GaryTaylor]

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.

I don’t think anyone can help you with the specific area of concern as no-one knows what this issue is. The Church has various degrees of teaching from Dogma, Doctrine and then to teaching. The encyclicals also have various levels to their teaching. Its very possible you are talking about something which is a believed teaching but definitely not infallible or part of the deposit of faith. So its very hard to understand what you are saying. There is an illusive area which simply can’t be addressed.

Not agreeing because the conversation isn’t over isn’t rejecting their teaching, its a continued conversation which is what there lowest levels of teachings are such as Opinio tolerata . Or for example Marion apparitions are not part of the deposit of faith. They are taught and are not required to be believed. However, again its much better to say I don’t know than I don’t believe.

To believe everything the Church teaches is to ascend to the faith of the Church. When we say I believe in the Catholic Church-Creed, then its a statement you believe in her faith and teaching. Otherwise I can’t imagine why people say such things and recite prayers about Seraphim or Cherubim, I mean, you take it on faith at some point.

Levels such as Sententia probabilis means the teaching is probable and so forth down to Opinio tolerata which refers to pious beliefs with a low degree of theological certainty. So there’s room for tolerance but still its rather suspect to simply reject the wisdom and prudence of the Church due to personal opinion on faith and morals.

 

[kozlosap]

I have struggled with this same question for many years. I adhere to and believe completely with the theological underpinnings of the Church, but I cannot wrap my pea sized intellect around the teachings on LGBTQ people or the ban on ABC. I also have spoken with several Holy priests about my conundrum, and they all indicated that I’m not alone in the conclusions that my well forged conscience tell me. There are some here at CAF that continually write that unless I believe in every single social dogma that the Church teaches that I’m not a “real” Catholic. I, however, will be Catholic for eternity and when I meet St. Peter at those pearly gates, the first question would not be if I believed in the ban on ABC…

 

[Setimet]

Not agreeing because the conversation isn’t over isn’t rejecting their teaching, its a continued conversation which is what there lowest levels of teachings are such as Opinio tolerata . Or for example Marion apparitions are not part of the deposit of faith. They are taught and are not required to be believed. However, again its much better to say I don’t know than I don’t believe.

…

Levels such as Sententia probabilis means the teaching is probable and so forth down to Opinio tolerata which refers to pious beliefs with a low degree of theological certainty. So there’s room for tolerance but still its rather suspect to simply reject the wisdom and prudence of the Church due to personal opinion on faith and morals.

Good point about rejecting teaching! Where can I find more info on “Sententia probabilis” and “Opinio tolerata” and how to figure out precisely what each statement is?

 

[pianistclare]

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.

OK. I MEANT that there are no church teaching that will lead you astray, and I think I clarified that. I never said it was a quote from Jesus Himself, or a Church Father.
The" mission" “goal” “worthy activity” whatever you want to call it, is to help people to achieve holiness don’t you think? Is there not a component of Catholicism that helps people to be holy?
If not, please, tell us how the church does not engender holiness.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Good point about rejecting teaching! Where can I find more info on “Sententia probabilis” and “Opinio tolerata” and how to figure out precisely what each statement is?

Ha, I would try to google Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma- Dr. Ludwig Ott and see if you can read it on-line. If not then the book is a worthwhile read. Limbo for example was opinio tolerata. Or for example it goes like this.

1. Dogmas - This is De Fide - This is infallible
2. Doctrines - This is Sent. Certa - This is infallible but has not been formally elevated yet to the level of De Fide
3. Teachings - Includes Sent. Communis, Sent. pia et probabilis, Sent. communior, and Sent. probabilior - These have varying degrees of certainty and are widely believed. However, they do not rise to the same level as Sent. Certa or De Fide and are therefore not infallible.

So from there read Fundamentals above as suggested you’ll get a better idea of which teaching has which degree of certainly.

Also what I would also do is google Ordinary Magisterium as you’ll also find the levels of the papal encyclicals.

It will give you a better understanding of what the Church is saying.

 

[Setimet]

Ha, I would try to google Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma- Dr. Ludwig Ott and see if you can read it on-line. If not then the book is a worthwhile read. Limbo for example was opinio tolerata. Or for example it goes like this.

1. Dogmas - This is De Fide - This is infallible
2. Doctrines - This is Sent. Certa - This is infallible but has not been formally elevated yet to the level of De Fide
3. Teachings - Includes Sent. Communis, Sent. pia et probabilis, Sent. communior, and Sent. probabilior - These have varying degrees of certainty and are widely believed. However, they do not rise to the same level as Sent. Certa or De Fide and are therefore not infallible.

So from there read Fundamentals above as suggested you’ll get a better idea of which teaching has which degree of certainly.

Also what I would also do is google Ordinary Magisterium as you’ll also find the levels of the papal encyclicals.

It will give you a better understanding of what the Church is saying.

I have hence Amazoned it to myself. I shall have Dr. Ott’s book on Saturday. Thank you very much!

 

[Tom_Baum]

OK. I MEANT that there are no church teaching that will lead you astray, and I think I clarified that. I never said it was a quote from Jesus Himself, or a Church Father.
The" mission" “goal” “worthy activity” whatever you want to call it, is to help people to achieve holiness don’t you think? Is there not a component of Catholicism that helps people to be holy?
If not, please, tell us how the church does not engender holiness.

I believe that the “mission” is salvation as opposed to holiness and it is not just about us humans but about ALL of creation.

Holiness is something that a person may or may not be while here on the planet whereas SALVATION is why God became One of us for ALL of us.

The Incarnation does concern our life here but the Incarnation is about much more than our temporary stay here.

The Incarnation is also about much more than just us humans.

It may seem like a little thing and it may seem like a self-evident thing but before the Incarnation, God was NOT a “part” of God’s creation.

Besides the “fact” that the Incarnation changes God’s relationship with us, the Incarnation changes God’s relationship with ALL of creation.

The “mission” of God’s Church is very simple and God-Incarnate spelled it out for us very simply when He said, “And the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail againtst It”.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I believe that the “mission” is salvation as opposed to holiness and it is not just about us humans but about ALL of creation.

Holiness is something that a person may or may not be while here on the planet whereas SALVATION is why God became One of us for ALL of us.

The Incarnation does concern our life here but the Incarnation is about much more than our temporary stay here.

The Incarnation is also about much more than just us humans.

It may seem like a little thing and it may seem like a self-evident thing but before the Incarnation, God was NOT a “part” of God’s creation.

Besides the “fact” that the Incarnation changes God’s relationship with us, the Incarnation changes God’s relationship with ALL of creation.

The “mission” of God’s Church is very simple and God-Incarnate spelled it out for us very simply when He said, “And the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail againtst It”.

What about Jesus’ commission. The great commission… Go and make DISCIPLES of all nations.

Discipleship is a conversion of heart a turning from evil, a growth in holiness.

I find it odd you reduce the church’s mission to simply existing (not failing).

 

[Tom_Baum]

What about Jesus’ commission. The great commission… Go and make DISCIPLES of all nations.

Discipleship is a conversion of heart a turning from evil, a growth in holiness.

I find it odd you reduce the church’s mission to simply existing (not failing).

I wrote that the “ultimate mission” of the Church is that “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It”, I did not spell out how this “mission” would be accomplished, only that it would be accomplished.

Seems to me that Jesus was giving us encouragement that this “mission” would have a successful completion.

And I think that from the looks of this world that Jesus was very wise, to put it mildly, to give us this encouragement.

And as far as “(not failing)”, what good would all of the “growth in holiness” be, if the ultimate “mission” of God’s Church ended in failure and the gates of the netherworld did prevail against It?

It will be a Total and All-encompassing Victory, a tie is absolutely and utterly unacceptable.

And as far as, “I find it odd you reduce the church’s mission to simply existing”, how did you ever come up with this?

I never came close to saying anything even remotely like that but I have said many times that I do not know all of the details.

I, also, do not need to know “all of the details”, I would say that that is God’s “job”, I am just glad that God-Incarnate let us know that somehow God’s Plan, which God has had since before creation, WILL come to Fruition.