How much can a Catholic disagree with the Church?

[nicolakirwan]

The Church’s teaching is also unassailable with respect to doctrine. If you don’t understand this yet, hopefully you will very soon. It’s essential to know this to be a practicing Catholic in communion with Rome.

The non-trustworthiness of any particular Catholic, lay, clergy, or religious, has zero effect on the absolute character of defined doctrine.

Only dogma rises to the level of infallibility which leaves doctrine that does not rise to the level of dogma vulnerable to the fallibility of fallen man. The Church may require require to doctrine that is not dogma, but that itself does not make it infallible.

 

[JRKH]

It’s often argued that there are only two options–assent to the Church’s teaching or rely solely on “personal opinion.” It’s not either/or. Scripture and Church teaching are clear that believers have the Holy Spirit within them who will witness to truth.

Before people rush to counter this, think about the different contexts in which the term “teaching” applies. Church leaders can teach dogma, and they can also teach and encourage practices that do not actually rise to the level of dogma. Thus, the term “Church teaching” often refers both to infallible teachings and also to possibly fallible judgments and actions promoted because of sin.

Some say, well, the Church is the most trustworthy regarding everything, even outside of official dogma; but I think that both past and present struggles within the Church suggest that Christians would do well to stay as close as possible to Christ by the Holy Spirit to discern whether what they are being led to do is of God.

The Church’s teaching is unassailable with respect to dogma. Catholic leaders may and have by word and deed violated the very teaching they uphold as absolute truth. Recognizing these instances demands discernment. (for one’s own spiritual life, knowing the difference between opinion and discernment is vital)

Think of the saints who found themselves persecuted and subject to inquisitors? Think of the abuses that caused scandal during the time of the reformers. Think today of the complicity of many leaders in covering up the victimization of children. I recall that at one point, there was only one bishop in the Church not given over to the heresy of Arianism. One bishop out of all of them! We might marvel from our point in history that this shows the perseverance of truth in the Church. But think about what that meant for believers during that time. They would have had to know the truth well enough for themselves not to be carried away by the sin of their leaders. That includes knowing the real teaching of the Church, but also that just because someone who is a spiritual authority is teaching something doesn’t make it right or true.

The perseverance of God’s truth through the ages is one thing. The trustworthiness of individual leaders is something entirely different.

Nicola…
Great post. So many good points.
One is the indwelling of the Spirit and the necessity of obeying our conscience.
Another is the need to really KNOW what the Church teaches…What the Catechism refers to as the “Well formed conscience”.
A third point you make is that there are different levels of teaching and you rightly note that there differences between “teaching” and “practice” - this also extends to differences in “teaching” and “disciplines”.
Fourth you point out that while Church teaching is reliable - individual teachers may not be. I’m reminded of the passage in Mt 23:-1-3 where Jesus tells the disciples to be obedient to the Scribes and Pharisees because they sit on the seat of Moses - but do not do what they do…
We sure know how Jesus felt about the lives of many of these leaders…Yet he upheld their authority.

Like I say - many wonderful points. One comment I would make though is that “infallibility”, as I understand it, is not strictly restricted to Dogmatic declarations but also applies to Doctrinal teachings on faith and morals. This is not to say that doctrine cannot develop, evolve or be restructured, but the underlying fundamental truths and historical consistency of teaching remains the same.
A case in point - from the Catechism - is how the Second Vatican Council restructured the statement “outside the Church there is no salvation”…taking a more positive approach in explaining the teaching.

Anyway - I really just wanted to thank you for a very fine post.

Peace
James

 

[Elizabeth502]

Only dogma rises to the level of infallibility which leaves doctrine that does not rise to the level of dogma vulnerable to the fallibility of fallen man. The Church may require require to doctrine that is not dogma, but that itself does not make it infallible.

Please learn the difference between unassailable and infallible. Infallibility is a technical term, limited to particular statements ex cathedra. It is rarely employed, but its rarety has no bearing on the aboslute binding character of Catholic doctrine. You are in error if you think that only dogma binds. It clearly does not. This is authentic Catholic theology.

Doctrine does not vary with respect to the person or persons declaring the doctrine (their “fallenness”). The Holy Spirit, in guiding the Church via doctrine, overrides that fallennees, because the Holy Spirit was commissioned by Jesus Himself to guide the Chruch.

You are very mistaken and are misleading others on this forum.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Can you go into more detail about how Church guidance lent you more freedom?

Also, I do suppose that the basis of my inquiry lies with the sensus fidelium vs. the Church hierarchy, not necessarily the Church itself, which would include the laity. But the core of my own personal issue is with papal infallibility and the seemingly complete abandonment of the consensuses from Vatican II. Is there something essential I am missing here? These are things Hans Kung speaks of, and he still remains in good standing. Can I disagree with the Pope, as Kung has, and remain in good standing?

Many thanks for your prayers and your post did not make me feel judged.

Vatican ll taught no new dogma. Hans Kung is an idiot and I doubt very much if he is celebrating Mass. As far as he " consensus of the faithful " goes that just means that those who are truely faithful believe and hold fast to what the Magisterium of the Church teaches, even when they can’t understand the reason for the teaching. That includes believing in the infallibility of the Pope.

The world is full of those kind of people. We call them Protestants, Calvanists, Baptists, agnostics, atheists, etc.

 

[Ion]

…

1. Infallibility…In choosing to reject a clear teaching of the Church on faith and morals, one is placing their own judgement - ** their own “infallibility” above that of the Church in her magisterium ** . This is a dangerous thing that needs to be carefully and soberly considered before rejecting any teaching.
   …

This is the core of the protestant beliefs, the personal infallibility:

Luther: “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves)…”

Personal infallibility does not exclude judging and agreeing on other persons reason.

 

[nicolakirwan]

To allow room for personal conviction does not necessitate a belief in personal infallibility. Infallibility relates to something being beyond error, unassailable, unquestionably true. One might act on a conviction without having the certainty that one’s judgment is beyond error. In academic circles this is called intellectual humility. As Paul says, “We see in a mirror dimly…”

A criticism of the Catholic Church that I recently encountered for the first time was external unity versus internal unity. This Charismatic, non-denominational pastor found it difficult to take the claims of “oneness” in Catholicism seriously, as it is evident to anyone who hangs around for a while that even amongst the clergy, many Catholics believe according to their conscience, even if they outwardly comply with what the Church says.

There are dogmas that demand belief; but no person, Catholic or otherwise, is relieved of the responsibility before God to be spiritually discerning. The Church affirms that individuals must not act against a well formed conscience. To do so does not necessarily mean that one believes him or herself to be beyond error. That’s the rub of unity. It cannot be wrought through coercion, but only through the work of the Spirit who can bring all of us into one accord.

 

[Ion]

To allow room for personal conviction does not necessitate a belief in personal infallibility. Infallibility relates to something being beyond error, unassailable, unquestionably true. One might act on a conviction without having the certainty that one’s judgment is beyond error. In academic circles this is called intellectual humility. As Paul says, “We see in a mirror dimly…”

Conviction means a strong persuasion or belief.
Luther said “…I AM CONVINCED…”
There is only false humility in Luther, he can accept something he didn’t think of, but he must judge and decide. Of course, he can be wrong, but for himself or in himself that is ok (???), because of the human error.
That “I am” sounds terribly wrong…

 

[Elizabeth502]

To allow room for personal conviction does not necessitate a belief in personal infallibility. Infallibility relates to something being beyond error, unassailable, unquestionably true. One might act on a conviction without having the certainty that one’s judgment is beyond error. In academic circles this is called intellectual humility. As Paul says, “We see in a mirror dimly…”

Again, you are confusing a lot of things.
Infallibility =/= unassailibility. Infallibility refers to the circmstances under which a papal pronouncement is made. Unassailable refers to the Holiness at the core of the Church (one of its four marks) which was guaranteed by Jesus, and by which we know docrine to be free from error. Not scientific understandings which change with time. Not explanations of that fixed doctrine, some of which change with time. But definitive moral doctrine. Personal assent (outside of the magisterium) has no affect on the objective, absolute character of that doctine. Personal assent can be modified by an individual’s level of faith, as well as an individual’s degree of information/knowledge, as well as an individual’s intellectual capacity, as well as an individual’s degree of pride/sinfulness.

even amongst the clergy, many Catholics believe according to their conscience, even if they outwardly comply with what the Church says.

Belief =/= doctrine and does not modify doctine. A conscience can be easily fooled, easily distorted, easily misinformed. The fact that many believe something, even that most believe something (in the Roman Church) is irrelevant to the fidelity of that belief and the accuracy of that understanding. Millions of people believe thousands of errant ideas, even outside of any church.

There are dogmas that demand belief; but no person, Catholic or otherwise, is relieved of the responsibility before God to be spiritually discerning. The Church affirms that individuals must not act against a well formed conscience. To do so does not necessarily mean that one believes him or herself to be beyond error. That’s the rub of unity. It cannot be wrought through coercion, but only through the work of the Spirit who can bring all of us into one accord.

But the Spirit needs the cooperation of the individual to understand and assent to the fixed doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, which are many and which are not subject to some kind of popularity contest or vote. It’s not the Spirit Who has to come into line, but the individual. The doctrine is already there for him or her to discover, respect, value, and interiorize. The failure to do that has nothing to do with any inadequacies of any individuals within the Spirit-guided Magisterium of the Roman Church.

 

[JRKH]

A criticism of the Catholic Church that I recently encountered for the first time was external unity versus internal unity. This Charismatic, non-denominational pastor found it difficult to take the claims of “oneness” in Catholicism seriously, as it is evident to anyone who hangs around for a while that even amongst the clergy, many Catholics believe according to their conscience, even if they outwardly comply with what the Church says.

Yes - I have run into this as well…but it really is not a valid argument for it confuses actual teaching with the actions of individuals. This is why it is generally better to say that, “The Catholic Church teaches”…rather than the more common “Catholics believe”.

The Unity in the Catholic Church stems from it’s governance. It’s ability to tackle difficult questions, analyze them, separate Truth from error and issue true and valid teachings.
Compare this ability to the model used in the protestant world where this mechanism does not exist…
I like to use Acts 15 as an example when discussing this matter with Protestants.
Acts 15 demonstrates a Catholic model…If the Protestant model were in effect at the time, the Church in Antioch would have split there would have been a Gentile community on one corner and an Hebrew community on the other corner. Each one entirely sure that the other is wrong…
Thankfully the model used in Scripture is the same model used by the Catholic (and EO) Church. The issue was “kicked upstairs” to be resolved in council. In short, they "told it to the Church and then they “Listened to the Church”, just as Christ instructed. (Mt 18:15-18) Of course I think that we can assume that not every member of the church was entirely happy with the decision…but it was made and has been the rule of the universal Church ever since.

The Holy Spirit thought this model - instruction and example - important enough to include in the written tradition of the Church. The Catholic Church has followed this model (with pretty fair success) ever since. The Protestants have been trying out a different (less biblical) model for 500 years with considerably less success at acheiving doctrinal unity.

Just some thoughts.

Peace
James

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

I would bid anyone wondering about my claim that the Church has moved away from the spirit of Vatican II to read the article I linked below, in full. The viewpoint is strictly of the author’s, who I am not, but he did provide some insight as to why I would make that assertion in the first place.

anothervoice-greenleaf.org/2012/10/21/the-catholic-ministry-of-misinformation/

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

Vatican ll taught no new dogma.

Incorrect.

Hans Kung is an idiot and I doubt very much if he is celebrating Mass.

How very Christ like of you, condemning a priest in good standing as an idiot.

As far as he " consensus of the faithful " goes that just means that those who are truely faithful believe and hold fast to what the Magisterium of the Church teaches, even when they can’t understand the reason for the teaching. That includes believing in the infallibility of the Pope.

This, I would wager, is a good example of how we’ve come so far away from the spirit of Vatican II. The definition/understanding of sensus fidelium has been modified considerably since the council.

 

[Usige]

How very Christ like of you, condemning a priest in good standing as an idiot

Did not they link you posted call the Vatican and Pope Benedict the “ministry of misinformation”? It also referred to Cardinals, Bishops, and the Pope as revisionist. Is that how we are to uphold a Christ like image by denigrating the clergy?

You also said it is false that Vatican II produced no new dogmas. What dogma do you believe was pronounced? I seriously cannot find new dogmatic statements so if there were new dogmas I truely would like to know what they are and where they are written.

I guess I’m just not following what you mean by drifting from the spirit of the council. Do you mean sensus fidelium as being some type of democraticization of the Church? In otherwords the clergy proposses, but the Church (clergy and laity) accepts or rejects?

I am just trying to follow what exactly you want or expect as an outcome.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

Did not they link you posted call the Vatican and Pope Benedict the “ministry of misinformation”? It also referred to Cardinals, Bishops, and the Pope as revisionist. Is that how we are to uphold a Christ like image by denigrating the clergy?

You also said it is false that Vatican II produced no new dogmas. What dogma do you believe was pronounced? I seriously cannot find new dogmatic statements so if there were new dogmas I truely would like to know what they are and where they are written.

I guess I’m just not following what you mean by drifting from the spirit of the council. Do you mean sensus fidelium as being some type of democraticization of the Church? In otherwords the clergy proposses, but the Church (clergy and laity) accepts or rejects?

I am just trying to follow what exactly you want or expect as an outcome.

You must have not read the part of my post where I said the viewpoints of the author were solely the author’s and not mine, the reason for that being the things you said. I knew someone would find them objectionable, and they wouldn’t be without reason, but you’re getting hung up on something frivolous to the discussion.

Vatican I said visiting a non-Catholic church would lead to an excommunication/anathema. Vatican II condemned anathemas and even said that non-believers have a chance to be saved.

I wouldn’t mind a system where the clergy and laity lobbies proposals for the approval or denial by the Magisterium. Is there something in the scripture/sacred tradition that speaks against this? Just curious, if there is that’d be helpful.

 

[Usige]

Vatican I said visiting a non-Catholic church would lead to an excommunication/anathema. Vatican II condemned anathemas and even said that non-believers have a chance to be saved.

Excommunication is a canonical penalty and has nothing to do with dogma.

I wouldn’t mind a system where the clergy and laity lobbies proposals for the approval or denial by the Magisterium. Is there something in the scripture/sacred tradition that speaks against this? Just curious, if there is that’d be helpful.

The magisterium doesn’t really work that way. It is not something that is voted on because you can’t vote on truth. One can always ask questions and receive answers but truth cannot be changed. For instance one could ask if Christ is both human and divine. Through the magisterium we know this to be true, but we can’t lobby to change dogma because truth doesn’t change. Even if the majority of the church comes to believe that Christ does not have a dual nature that does not change the truth.

Normally questions are asked to clarify things the church hasn’t spoken on. One example I can think of was the question if sterilization renders marriage invalid. This was raised in the early 70s and the church allows that sterilization in of itself does not invalidate marriage.

Really the only place that people can ask for a change is to discipline. One could always ask that priest be allowed to marry since this is a matter of discipline. The Holy Father could always allow it if he felt it was in the best interest of the church. That being said he is not required to follow majority opinion.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Incorrect.

What new Dogmas were promulgated ?

Thanks for the lecture.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

What new Dogmas were promulgated ?

Thanks for the lecture.

Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium. It is not my intention to lecture, in fact my intentions are based in the desire to learn. I apologize if I offended you

I think the things I cited before were alterations to doctrines, perhaps, instead of dogma? Can someone clear that up? (the condemnation of anathemas, that non-believers might be saved)

 

[PRmerger]

Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium.

There is nothing new in DV and LG, as it applies to dogma.

If you look at the footnotes you will see a plethora of citations of the ECFs and prior magisterial documents.

 

[JRKH]

You must have not read the part of my post where I said the viewpoints of the author were solely the author’s and not mine, the reason for that being the things you said. I knew someone would find them objectionable, and they wouldn’t be without reason, but you’re getting hung up on something frivolous to the discussion.

Vatican I said visiting a non-Catholic church would lead to an excommunication/anathema. Vatican II condemned anathemas and even said that non-believers have a chance to be saved.

I wouldn’t mind a system where the clergy and laity lobbies proposals for the approval or denial by the Magisterium. Is there something in the scripture/sacred tradition that speaks against this? Just curious, if there is that’d be helpful.

I am curious why you think this cannot and/or does not happen.
So far as I know, the laity can most certainly propose and can question and can even “lobby” (in the sense of discussion and debate) on a given idea. This is most certainly within the right and proper purpose and function of the universal ekklesia.

However…this “lobbying” does not extend to those things already bound or loosed by the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium except perhaps where the faithful seeks to more fully understand a given decision.

I think that the biggest “barrier” to this idea is the simple fact that most all the questions have already been asked and answered…Coming up with something new to propose would be pretty difficult.

Peace
James

 

[Usige]

I think the things I cited before were alterations to doctrines, perhaps, instead of dogma? Can someone clear that up? (the condemnation of anathemas, that non-believers might be saved)

I can’t find anything in any of the Vatican II documents where they condemn anathema. If you can point me the the specific document and section I can give a better answer. That being said, anathema is also a canonical penalty. From flipping through the 1917 code of canon law it looks like even at that time (45+ years before Vatican II) that anathema and excommunication were treated as essentially the same thing. From the history of the two that I’ve read both were treated the same way through the 4th or 5th century. At that time the two became more distinct versions of similar penalties with anathema reserved for the worst offenses. While they had different canonical effects they really were not different from the spiritual effects.

As for no salvation outside of the Church (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus), this is still a dogmatic teaching. What the council did was clarify what the Church has always understood the teaching to be. Really that phrase is in reference to people that commit heresy or schismatic acts. A Baptist that was raised into a Baptist community is not schismatic or heretical because they are not rejecting the Church. You cannot reject what you have never learned. On the other hand if someone were raised in the Church and properly catechized, but then rejected the faith and proclaimed heretical teachings then they would be outside the Church by their own actions. The teaching is that those persons will not be saved less they repent of their heresies. See this or read the book “Salvation Outside the Church?” by Father Peter Stravinskas for more about this topic.

Generally the Second Vatican council is considered to be a pastoral council. By this I mean it did not produce any new dogma or theological teaching. Really it talks to how the Church relates to the modern world. It might change the emphasis of various things, but it does not change the theological teachings of the Church. At best it simply clarifies what had always been poorly understood before.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I know I am totally jumping in here mid conversation, but I simply want to add a few words to the thread. Through the years, I have talked with many Catholics and Protestants on certain teachings of the Church. Many Protestant will simply say, “that is not what the Bible is saying” while others will just ignore certain passages if they do not fit in with the doctrine of their faith. But when it comes to fellow Catholics, how can we question something when we are asked to have faith in it? Sure there has been some corrupt priest and popes in the past and I’m sure there will be some in the future. Christ knew this when he established his Church on earth. He left it in the hands of mortal sinners. BUT lol, He still is the head of the Church and the Holy Spirit will forever guide Her. With all the stains put upon the Church from scandal and abuse, She still stands. Why? She stands today because of our FAITH in her teachings and the guidance of our Lord.

Look at Pope Alexander (Borgia). He was a very corrupt man, but he also instituted higher education, the love of arts, welcomed the expelled Jews to the Papal State…etc. God can still use corrup people to do His will can he not?

I am a firm believer in asking questions. That is how one learns! But if the answer we get to our question is not acceptable to “our” will, then one must examine the will of the own life and see if it fits with the will of God.

If your will contradicts the Church, then I’m pretty sure your will is not in agreement with God’s. Just my :twocents: