How much can a Catholic disagree with the Church?

[Elizabeth502]

I am a firm believer in asking questions. That is how one learns!

As am I. I come from an intellectually curious family which valued inquiry.

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:

Agreed.

And I will add that one of the central features and dynamics of Catholicism is that Faith does not contradict Reason. That does require, however, being fully informed as to the articles of faith and as to their reasons – how one informs the other. Because of the corruption of catechesis and the confusion of understanding which spiralled off of some superficial interpretations of Vatican II, the intellectual “guts” of Catholic doctrine have too often been compromised, resulting in the illusion of contradiction. This is what happens anywhere when one takes unsuitable shortcuts, and employs, inappropriately, a reductionist model to a complex one, or imports terms from one realm into another (inapplicable) realm.

The combination of the above and the modern compromises to a classical, or even just adequate, education in argumentation has affected the ability of many a modern Catholic from having an accurate perspective on Vatican 2 witihin the unchanging doctrines of the Church.

Thanks for joining the discussion.

 

[Spider42]

Forgive the late addition to this thread. I believe that I have read all the answers, but forgive me if this is a rehash. One of the best explanations of dissent can be found here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

It’s target audience is theologians, so it isn’t the easiest read, but it is well worth studying.

The Church understands that there will always be dissent. Dissent, even fairly extreme forms of dissent, does not generally, in of itself, separate one from the Body of the Faithful or at least the Body of Christ, provided that dissent is handled in a certain way.

The Church’s goal isn’t blind obedience. The Church’s goal is the proper development and formation of our moral consciences. This tension is put very succinctly in the Catechism:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” - CCC 1790

The Church doesn’t want anyone to disregard the first sentence, but it also doesn’t want anyone to disregard the second. And, when it comes to forming consciences we believe that the apostles, and most specifically the Vicar of Christ, have special weight. Yes, they are human, but they try to work methodically and collegially.

At the heart of it, the Church is asking us to treat moral disagreement with it the way we are taught to treat disagreement with anyone:

"To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

<<Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.>>" - CCC 2478 quoting St. Ignatius of Loyola

Take the above, which echoes the advice found in the Gospel of Matthew, and put it in the context of how you would handle disagreement with someone you love and respect, and you are basically there.

Pax Christi

 

[JRKH]

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:

…Very nice :twocents:…

Something that has occurred to me regarding “corrupt popes” is this…

Corrupt Popes came about during the time when the Pope was both Spiritual AND Temporal (political) leader of vast lands and kingdoms. This set up very difficult situations and sometimes political considerations got the upper hand in the selection of the Bishop of Rome.
But here’s the thing…
Those who were primarily political and/or corrupt had little interest in studying or pronouncing or changing church teaching. They were much more interested in themselves, their families and their fortunes. If they did try to change any teaching in a corrupt way…they would most certainly face opposition from other churchmen and possibly kings as well. So they were pragmatic enough to leave spiritual matters largely alone.
Those Popes who were more holy were not so interested in themselves and when they DID issue teaching, it was correct and with the support of their fellow bishops.

Just another way in which the Holy Spirit protected Christ’s Church.

Peace
James

 

[MarkInOregon]

Copied from catholic.com quick answers:
“Papal infallibility means that the pope is protected from error when he “proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals” (CCC 891). This does not mean that he is impeccable (incapable of sin) or inerrant (incapable of error).”

I simply cannot wrap my head around this. They’re saying that the Pope is not without sin and can commit error, except when he is declaring a definitive doctrine. To my logical mind this doesn’t make sense. How can a sinner (by definition isn’t a sin a wrongful act?) ever, EVER be infallible, regardless of exclusivity of the action (ie it only applying to official Church doctrine).

May I inquire what you think about the Bible? Is it the inspired Word of God? Or is it just a collection of stories and letters for you? After all it was written by sinful, fallible men.
I guess my question is why can’t the Holy Spirit protect the Churches teaching authority? If you can accept it for the Bible (assuming you do)–why not the teaching office of the Church? Is it logical that Christ would have left us know way to know the truth?

Peace,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

Was this not the essence of the second Vatican council? Sometimes it seems as if the hierarchy doesn’t always operate out of a sense of justice and life in Christ but rather what will be the greatest consolidation of power for them. I realize that I am with fault and may be interpreting this incorrectly, however, hence why I am here asking these questions.

Out of curiosity how many of the Vactican II documents have your read?

Peace,
Mark

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

Not to get Kung up on things (oh man, that pun was so bad it was probably a sin), but here are some of the documents where I’ve been staking some of my claims. Keep in mind that the article was written in the same year as Vatican II, well before his teaching rights were stripped. At the end of the article are links to other articles that go into more depth. Articles of interest to the people here might be “Card. Koenig: Vatican II approved what the Syllabus and Pascendi condemned,” “Fr. Ratzinger agrees with Kung on reforming Papal Infallibility,” and “Card. Ratzinger: Gaudium et spes is a ‘counter-Syllabus,’” all of which are linked at the end of the article I’m providing.

Again, I want to stress that any views from the websites I provided are the views of the authors. Luckily, except for the lead-ins, most of the words come from the mouths of ordained priests. Keep in mind that I’m here to learn and understand while expressing some concerns. I’m not trying to push any of my claims as correct, I’m just seeking a broader perspective.

Link:

traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_053_Kung_CCL.htm

I’ve read some, but not all, of the documents of Vatican II.

 

[PRmerger]

Not to get Kung up on things (oh man, that pun was so bad it was probably a sin

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...cxvh3P1erU4JhSfr7v-jEykNBjEYSaYdZnFqjN2TUgbjU