How Much Disagreement Is OK in the Church?

[SoCalRC]

Speaking from a strictly lay point of view, I have gradually reached the conclussion that it is OK to question, even openly so, but it is also critically important to obey.

Growing up as a Catholic in the US, it is easy to think of Rome as something detached and not terribly relevant. Certainly I did. But in hindsight, teachings that I did not give much credence to often start to look very relevant over time.

For example, I was initially very skeptical about the absolute nature of our ban on abortions. After all, the tradition of abortions to save the life of a mother goes back to Christ. But the church chose to weigh in on the issue just as western eugenics began. It grew hugely popular in the US over 30 years, and might be popular still had it not been exposed as the attrocity it is via the Holocaust.

Similiarly, I did not understand, in the context of all the problems in the world, the Second Vatican Council was seemingly so concerned with fetal life. But that was also the beginning of vaccines grown human diploid cells harvested from the aborted. Futurists were already talking about organ harvesting.

I was also not terribly impressed with Pope John Paul II’s arguments about the death penalty. After all, we are talking about bad, evil people who have obviously done great harm. But I reluctantly obeyed. Now, with DNA science showing just how broken that aspect of our justice system seems to be, the same teaching now strikes me as self evident.

There is no gurantee about the theology, but here is how I approached it with one of my own children when she reached the difficult age. I asked her to pick a teaching she thought was wrong. She picked contraception. I asked her to tell me why it was wrong. She pointed out that it seemed to be at odds with our teaching on abortion, and noted that overpopulation is related to poverty, another important teaching.

My response was initially that those are all good, thoughtful points. But I then said that the big problem with discussing is that it is wrong to talk about our faith piece meal. Our faith is, in its true form, one coherent whole.

Next, I found something I knew she could accept in her heart. I asked her if her brother, who is severely disabled, deserved to live (he adores her, and she him). “Of Course!” But he can’t really care for himself, if someone does not feed him, wash him, help him, he would die - what if we die, should other people do those things for him? “Of Course!”

OK, where is the line, when is it our place to decide who is no longer worth the effort? “I don’t know”. Fine, we believe that it is not our place to judge. Life is a precious gift from God. So no matter who you are, the tiniest child, a disabled person like your brother, or an elderly person in a coma who needs a feeding tube, we should help. It isn’t a bunch of teachings, but one coherent whole from the instant of our creation to our natural death, and every second in between.

“I get that”. Now, what happens if we forget the big picture and start looking closely at one teaching - like abortion to save the life of the mother… Prophetically, this actually came up in her life just a few years later. Anyway, the point we discussed then was that if you take any one teaching out of the larger context, you can usually find cases where you would doubt if it was/is right. This is because we aren’t God, we can’t see all the circumstances, and we can’t know all the possible outcomes. But if you remember the whole, pray to God for guidance, make the best choices you can, and then ask for forgiveness if you still have the slightest doubt, what else can you do? “OK, I see that”.

Now, on to contraception. Let’s look at HUMANAE VITAE …- and we read the four predictions together. Are these all silly? Has any of this come true? “Maybe”. OK, do you think that it is proper to look at this teaching as say, a condom, or a birth control pill, or is it more correct to think of the sort of society that the Pope is saying those things represent?

Finally I told her, look, sometimes even the big picture won’t make sense, but that does not mean that it is wrong. Some teachings have taken a long time to be accepted by the laity as truth (again, somewhat prophetically, she later studied the Church’s long war against infanticide among the converted gentiles).

Again, I can’t vouch for the theology, but it seemed to resonate with her.

Good Luck

 

[Peregrino]

Can you explain that statement? If there is no initial authority then what defines this continuity? Doesn’t someone have to oversee this “continuity” in order for it not to become disordered?? Give me an example of any secular organization where continuity exists without leadership…I’m a little …teachccd

To start with, I believe that the teachings of Jesus have endured through time, in part because of the vehicle of the CC. Though in many ways the CC has historically missed the mark, the emphasis on the poor, love for neighbor, etc. has endured within the vehicle of the church, possibly sometimes in spite of the CC. I think that the church has shown moral virtue in its (sometimes sporadic) emphasis of these things.

In my perspective the true church is an organism not an organization. Perhaps that is where we differ. Jesus didn’t set up bureacracy and hierarchy; leaders were to be servants-Jesus constantly leveled the playing field and turned things on their head. Where catholics have a massive tome called the catechism and “canon lawyers” (jeez), Jesus told us to follow the two great commandments. He didn’t mention anything about an organization.

 

[brianwalden]

Is the creed said as an exercise in public profession or a reminder of doctrine? It the creed said aloud so other people “know that you are on the same page with them?” I don’t think so. I think it would be more of a lie to say the creed aloud and not believe it. I think that my purposeful ommision is more honest than what you are suggesting.

A creed by its very definition is a profession of faith. It comes from credo - I believe. It’s not a memorization lesson so we can learn doctrine like schoolchildren. As you phrased it, the purpose of reciting it is indeed so that everyone will know you’re on the same page with them. That’s the very purpose of a profession. It’s not called the Nicene reminder of doctrine lesson, it’s called the Nicene Creed.

I never said you should say the Creed if you don’t believe it. I said you should either say it or not say it, but don’t skip some of the words.

 

[Peregrino]

I never said you should say the Creed if you don’t believe it. I said you should either say it or not say it, but don’t skip some of the words.

So even if I believe certain parts of the creed, I should be prohibited from “professing when I AM on the same page as others” since that is what you believe the creed to be about? Should an atheist refrain from saying the pledge of allegiance simply because s/he refuses to say “under God” in part of the pledge? I think not.

 

[TMC]

Wow, I want to thank everyone for the very informative and helpful posts on this topic. A lot to think and digest here. There is one thing that brianwalden brought up that I have a question about:

But one thing I do feel very strongly about is that if your disagreements with the Church are such that by the Church’s standards you are not eligible to receive communion, you should not present yourself for communion at Mass.

I don’t disagree with that statement (I think), but here is my question. I have deliberately avoided any detailed discussion of my personal disagreements with the Church on this thread, because I think the abstract provides more room for reasoned discussion. But I don’t think any of my misgivings have resulted in any action or inaction that is in disobediance to the Church.

Can the mere fact of a disagreement with a doctrine in principle disqualify one to receive communion? I can’t see how or why.

Here is what I would consider a pretty extreme example. Let’s say I thoroughly understood why the filioque is important (which I don’t, and don’t bother explaining it, I don’t really care). That’s been dogma for a thousand years. If I thoroughly understood the Church’s position and thoroughly rejected it, does that have some effect on my salvation? If so why? Does it mean I can’t take communion? Why? It is never, ever, ever going to come up in real life, has absolutely no effect on how I interact with others, and has no real effect on how I interact with God. So who cares?

 

[SoCalRC]

Here is what I would consider a pretty extreme example. Let’s say I thoroughly understood why the filioque is important (which I don’t, and don’t bother explaining it, I don’t really care). That’s been dogma for a thousand years. If I thoroughly understood the Church’s position and thoroughly rejected it, does that have some effect on my salvation? If so why? Does it mean I can’t take communion? Why? It is never, ever, ever going to come up in real life, has absolutely no effect on how I interact with others, and has no real effect on how I interact with God. So who cares?

That’s actually a pretty interesting example. It is a theological difference that actually played a fairly major role in a large schism, but is hard to really relate in every day terms.

But I think the key is in the original quote, “such that the Church…” In the case of the filioque, Rome does not impose it on the East as a condition of communion. So it would seem reasonable to presume that questioning the teaching would not, in of itself, make you unworthy.

The Church does not give all teachings the same weight. And, contrary to popular belief, priorities have changed over the ages (ex. in the 8th century it appears that abortion carried a pennance of 120 days, oral sex a pennance of 10 years). But a general rule of thumb would be that anything that the Church has declared to be a “moral disorder”, or a ‘mortal sin’, disqualifies one from communion without reconcilliation. If you cannot accept the sin for what it is, you cannot really be absolved (think of an unheartfelt apology from a surly teenager), so you remain unfit. This is not meant to be punative, but instructive. My understanding is that even excommunication is the exclussion from the Body of the Faithful, it is not “anathema”, exclussion from the Body of Christ.

 

[brianwalden]

Wow, I want to thank everyone for the very informative and helpful posts on this topic. A lot to think and digest here. There is one thing that brianwalden brought up that I have a question about:

I don’t disagree with that statement (I think), but here is my question. I have deliberately avoided any detailed discussion of my personal disagreements with the Church on this thread, because I think the abstract provides more room for reasoned discussion. But I don’t think any of my misgivings have resulted in any action or inaction that is in disobediance to the Church.

Can the mere fact of a disagreement with a doctrine in principle disqualify one to receive communion? I can’t see how or why.

Here is what I would consider a pretty extreme example. Let’s say I thoroughly understood why the filioque is important (which I don’t, and don’t bother explaining it, I don’t really care). That’s been dogma for a thousand years. If I thoroughly understood the Church’s position and thoroughly rejected it, does that have some effect on my salvation? If so why? Does it mean I can’t take communion? Why? It is never, ever, ever going to come up in real life, has absolutely no effect on how I interact with others, and has no real effect on how I interact with God. So who cares?

TMC, I also stated it without specifics because I’m not really sure exact;u where that point is. I agree with SoCalRC that there’s a difference between doubt, even a lot of doubt, and being resolved that the Church is teaching error as a part of it’s ordinary Magisterium. If I believed the latter I would do everything I could to make sure that I wasn’t in fact wrong and not the Church. If I were still convinced in my judgment, I would probably start to question why I was a part of a Church who claimed to be inerrant but wasn’t. But I don’t know if I can say at what point a person would not be in full communion with the Church. I think that without any manifest sinful acts, that’s a personal decision that only you can make by searching your conscience.

Maybe a spiritual adviser who you can both trust personally and trust to give you orthodox advice might be helpful for you. The very fact that you’re so concerned about this seems to say that you are doing all you can to place your faith in the Church.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

TMC:

…But if a Catholic firmly believes that a doctrine is wrong, does he not have a duty to point that out in an appropriate way and time?

Yes. He has a duty to himself, to his Church, and to God. Why? Because faith cannot be unreasonable. He also has a duty to be willling to learn and to be willing to admit he is wrong when it is obvious that he is wrong.

TMC:

How else do doctrines evolve?

Well, exactly. But be careful here. Though doctrines may evolve, they do not change. That is a rose may grow into a more lovely rose but it cannot change into an artichoke.

TMC:

When Pope Benedict was elected a few years ago “traditional” Catholics on some forums (I didn’t post here back then) rejoiced that folks like me would be tossed out.

Dissenters have always been among us. St Francis of Assisi for example was a dissenter. There is a difference between a dissenter and a heretic however. St Francis was not a heretic.

Even those among us who have no love for the Church, hate her doctrines, even those Jesus asks us to endure in our presence. We must allow the tares to grow up among the wheat.

TMC:

Some even suggested that Christ would prefer a smaller Church.

Well I would. I feel demoralized when I find certain lay Catholics presuming to teach harmfully errant things to the innocent. And I feel demoralized when, after all is said and done, another election goes by and the abortion rate goes up. Yet we are still enjoined to endure the tares among the wheat.

TMC:

Now, surprise, the Church has not suddenly turned the clock back to 1914, and the threat of schism from the right now seems greater than schism from the left.

Nah! This schism nonsense is just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Want to see schism in motion? Join the Anglican church(es). For that matter join the evangelicals, non-denominationals, and emergingchurchers.

TMC:

In the real world people talk about these things.

The Church** is** the real world. The world where the Church is suppressed, where Christmas trees are removed from public buildings, where angels are banned from public display, where people can’t even say the truth about abortion – that is the false world. That is the world of lies and confusion.

TMC:

On forums for some reason we choose to instead rant at each other and tell people to get out of the Church.

Ah well, one does wonder why folks insist on attacking the Church and then line up for communion. It just doesn’t make sense to us.

TMC:

Doesn’t being a good Catholic include sharing sincerely held differences of opinion?

Yep, it does. It also means being prepared to defend opinions and to admit gracefully that one can be wrong. Trouble is I very rarely hear any attempts to defend opinions. People just have them. Then they want other people to have them. When they don’t, then they get angry and start getting personal.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

The specific point I want to discuss is this: how much can a Catholic disagree with the Church’s teaching and remain in the Church? Certainly many, if not most, Catholics disagree with the Church’s teachings on at least some topics. Should all those people leave the Church? Are they damned if they don’t?

Do you mean disagreeing or disobeying?

 

[TMC]

Ani Ibi, Thanks for your comments. Some thoughts on some of them:

Yes. He has a duty to himself, to his Church, and to God. Why? Because faith cannot be unreasonable. He also has a duty to be willling to learn and to be willing to admit he is wrong when it is obvious that he is wrong.

I agree with you here.

Well, exactly. But be careful here. Though doctrines may evolve, they do not change. That is a rose may grow into a more lovely rose but it cannot change into an artichoke.

I don’t think I agree with you here. I think that this is an entirely semantic argument that uses the word “evolve” to avoid admitting that things “change.”

Dissenters have always been among us. St Francis of Assisi for example was a dissenter. There is a difference between a dissenter and a heretic however. St Francis was not a heretic.

I agree completely. I would call St. Paul the first dissenter. He tells us that he opposed Peter to his face and that the first Pope was “clearly wrong” about the proper treatment of Gentiles in the Church. But I wonder if there were some that believed Francis was a heretic in his own time? And other dissenters that we now accept. Certainly the Inquisition labeled Galileo as a heretic, and we don’t believe that anymore.

Well I would. [prefer a smaller Church] I feel demoralized when I find certain lay Catholics presuming to teach harmfully errant things to the innocent. And I feel demoralized when, after all is said and done, another election goes by and the abortion rate goes up. Yet we are still enjoined to endure the tares among the wheat.

I just don’t understand why people say this. Aren’t misled Christians, regardless of how misled, better off in the Church? Isn’t the goal of the Church to bring them all in? Didn’t we just discuss that we have always had dissenters, including some pretty prominent Saints?

Yep, it does. It also means being prepared to defend opinions and to admit gracefully that one can be wrong. Trouble is I very rarely hear any attempts to defend opinions. People just have them. Then they want other people to have them. When they don’t, then they get angry and start getting personal.

I couldn’t agree more. Although I admit that the dissenter should have the burden of persuasion, the need for collegiality and to provide reasoned opinions runs both ways. I have tried to express my opinions and reasoning thoughtfully in this forum and others. I don’t get much meaningful reaction other than: 1) “You don’t understand the catechism” - I do I just disagree with it; 2) “You don’t want to follow the rules, you want to make up you’re own rules” - this is just silly, if I made up my own rules why would I care what the Church’s rules are? Its because I care that I dissent; 3) “You are stupid” - always the last refuge of the frustrated debater, and 4) “You are a pawn of Satan” - don’t know how to respond to this one, but I certainly don’t accept its truth.

 

[FCEGM]

. . .

I agree completely. I would call St. Paul the first dissenter. He tells us that he opposed Peter to his face and that the first Pope was “clearly wrong” about the proper treatment of Gentiles in the Church. . .

Just as the Pope is not infallible in his day-to-day actions, neither was Peter. Peter teaches nothing which is not the true and complete Gospel message. The situation in Antioch had to do with him trying to appease the Jewish Christians - much as Paul himself did on several occasions - yet this episode went too far, since it seriously threatened the “oneness” of the Church. That’s why Paul was correct, and Peter had to be set straight - even as numerous Popes had to be corrected in their behavior by Saints throughout the ages.

What did St. Peter teach that was wrong? The answer is: Nothing. Paul is not questioning St. Peter’s authority here and is not dissenting from what Peter taught. So, you are not addressing his teaching authority, but rather a failure on his part to see the full picture as it applied to his ministry of leadership.

 

[FCEGM]

. . . I don’t get much meaningful reaction other than: 1) “You don’t understand the catechism” - I do I just disagree with it; 2) “You don’t want to follow the rules, you want to make up you’re own rules” - this is just silly, if I made up my own rules why would I care what the Church’s rules are? Its because I care that I dissent; . . .

It is one thing to object to “rules”, it is an entirely other thing to dissent from Magisterial teaching on faith and morals. One is not “caring” for the revealed faith of the Church through dissent. “Caring” is not a sufficient reason to judge oneself as the arbiter of the truth of revelation rather than the Church having the right judgment on Faith and Morals.

The Saints, of course, have said and done the direct opposite of dissent. And so has Scripture contradicted any thought of self-centered subjectivism, as did John Paul II in an encyclical on moral theology. It is a conceit to make oneself an exception to the rule of the obedience of faith based on one’s own opinion of oneself as having prayed, studied and thought rightly because sincerely. St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Jesus, to name only the most renowned, have both explicitly said that if anything they taught contradicted their Holy Mother the Roman Catholic Church, one was to go with the Church and not with their teaching; the Gospel says that if one does not even listen to the Church, treat that a one as an unbeliever.

But to accept it does not always mean to understand it, and given that each person has his own way of understanding things he may NOT understand or may have a difficulty understanding what he is willing to accept, since he may easily have attitudes partially formed by the non-believing world of society that would contradict the attitudes of Faith assumed and expressed

It reasonable to believe divinely-established apostolic authority in the arena of its competence, i.e., faith and morals. To accept one’s own judgment in that area as if it counted more than such a divine magisterium would be to blindly obey one’s own judgment as competent, just as it would be blind obedience to follow episcopal thinking about mathematics, say, which is not the area of competence for bishops.

 

[TMC]

Peter teaches nothing which is not the true and complete Gospel message. The situation in Antioch had to do with him trying to appease the Jewish Christians - …

What did St. Peter teach that was wrong? The answer is: Nothing. Paul is not questioning St. Peter’s authority here and is not dissenting from what Peter taught. So, you are not addressing his teaching authority, but rather a failure on his part to see the full picture as it applied to his ministry of leadership.

I think the Antioch incident was more serious than you imply. The issue was whether Gentile converts to Christianity should be required to conform to Jewish law. It was clearly done in result to the influence of the Jewish Christians, but whether and how much of the Jewish law remained compulsory for Christians was not merely an issue of “leadership.” It was one of the first important theological challenge the Church faced. Luke tells us that Peter decided that Gentiles will not be held to Judaic law in Acts 15. Paul tells us, or more directly told the Galatians, that he confronted Peter on this issue. (Galatians 2:11-14) Paul plainly states that the issue was forcing “Gentiles to live like Jews.”

So I guess you could say that extent of the applicability of the Torah to Christians is a “leadership” issue vice a “teaching” issue. But it is hard to deny that Paul confronted Peter on an important issue, and that Peter listened to what he had to say. We can define that out of “dissent,” but then I’m not sure what dissent means anymore.

 

[brianwalden]

I think the Antioch incident was more serious than you imply. The issue was whether Gentile converts to Christianity should be required to conform to Jewish law. It was clearly done in result to the influence of the Jewish Christians, but whether and how much of the Jewish law remained compulsory for Christians was not merely an issue of “leadership.” It was one of the first important theological challenge the Church faced. Luke tells us that Peter decided that Gentiles will not be held to Judaic law in Acts 15. Paul tells us, or more directly told the Galatians, that he confronted Peter on this issue. (Galatians 2:11-14) Paul plainly states that the issue was forcing “Gentiles to live like Jews.”

So I guess you could say that extent of the applicability of the Torah to Christians is a “leadership” issue vice a “teaching” issue. But it is hard to deny that Paul confronted Peter on an important issue, and that Peter listened to what he had to say. We can define that out of “dissent,” but then I’m not sure what dissent means anymore.

St. Catherine of Siena told the Pope to be a man and get his behind back to Rome. I don’t see how that’s any different from what Paul did. Neither of them challenge my faith, I’m sure you’re not alone in finding these incidents troubling.

I’m not so sure you disagree with the Church’s claim of inerrancy in faith and morals so much as you don’t understand exactly what that claim is. I wish I had a good source to refer you to, maybe someone else does.

 

[TMC]

St. Catherine of Siena told the Pope to be a man and get his behind back to Rome. I don’t see how that’s any different from what Paul did. Neither of them challenge my faith, I’m sure you’re not alone in finding these incidents troubling.

I’m not so sure you disagree with the Church’s claim of inerrancy in faith and morals so much as you don’t understand exactly what that claim is. I wish I had a good source to refer you to, maybe someone else does.

I don’t claim to be an expert in infallibilty, but I think I understand the claim to inerrancy in faith and morals. My point, and the point of bringing up Antioch at all, is that from the very beginning of the Church those that held sincere differences on issues have raised them. Some of those opinions were later accepted by the Church. The Church is a master at defining these differences outside of the dogma, and must because dogma is by definition unchanging. I don’t have a problem with that. But I think that it remains important for Catholics today to voice their opinions, just has they have been doing since the beginning.

Antioch shows that this has been going on from the beginning. In the last century and a half or so, the Church’s ‘evolving’ teaching on the factual accuracy of the Old Testament accounts and on evolution show that it continues today. There really can be no doubt, in my opinion, that disagreement is allowed and even healthy in the Church. Which is why I framed this question from the beginning as “how much”.

I postulated the Creed as an essential. When the early councils met to draw up the essentials of the faith, this is what they came up with. If you believe the Creed you believe the essentials of the faith. Maybe there are other things that should be considered essentials, things that if you cannot profess you should not be Catholic. If so what are they? If its the entire catechism, then I’m afraid around 90% of Catholics aren’t Catholic, including a whole bunch of the religious.

If, on the other hand, the point is that sincerely held differences are OK only if you keep them to yourself, that is hard to accept. Is that the example set by the Saints? I don’t think it is.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

TMC:

I don’t think I agree with you here. I think that this is an entirely semantic argument that uses the word “evolve” to avoid admitting that things “change.”

But I am not using that argument. I am saying that infallible teaching may not change in its essential character. Our understanding of it may grow larger, more particular, more embracing.

In other words there is no boundary condition before which infallible teaching is one thing and after which infallible teaching is another distinct thing. The analogy used is that a rose cannot change into an artichoke.

So, if you believe that a rose can change into an artichoke, then we are at an impasse and will have to agree to disagree.

TMC:

I agree completely. I would call St. Paul the first dissenter. He tells us that he opposed Peter to his face and that the first Pope was “clearly wrong” about the proper treatment of Gentiles in the Church.

Correct. It is important, however, to know how this was resolved. Thoughts anyone?

TMC:

But I wonder if there were some that believed Francis was a heretic in his own time?

Back in the day, the Church was married more closely to secular authority, although not completely. It was more like secular authority had a crush on the Church. Secular authority believed that upheaval in the Church impacted secular society adversely.

So the Church had its view of what should be done with heretics (save their souls as far as possible) and the secular authorities had their view of what should be done with heretics (burn them and seize their property). No doubt Francis’s rich family were not overjoyed to hear of his ‘new career’.

TMC:

And other dissenters that we now accept. Certainly the Inquisition labeled Galileo as a heretic, and we don’t believe that anymore.

Galileo’s science was wrong. Galileo’s theology based on his wrong science was also wrong. Galileo was a heretic, not because he held a new scientific hypothesis. It was not new btw, it was borrowed and cobbled. He was a heretic because he transgressed the Church’s authority to teach theological truth.

TMC:

I just don’t understand why people say this. Aren’t misled Christians, regardless of how misled, better off in the Church?

Yes. That is why the Catholic Church for the most part allows the tares to grow up among the wheat. Great tolerance is shown toward dissenters. Only when those dissenters obstinately reject the Truth in the face of all reason and** when they teach** their inaccuracies to the vulnerable and innocent does the Church act to excommunicate them. This is scriptural. Matthew tells us that it is better for a person to have a stone around his neck than to lead any of the little ones astray.

TMC:

Isn’t the goal of the Church to bring them all in?

Yes.

TMC:

Didn’t we just discuss that we have always had dissenters, including some pretty prominent Saints?

Yes. But you are equivocating. Dissent does not equal heresy.

TMC:

I couldn’t agree more. Although I admit that the dissenter should have the burden of persuasion, the need for collegiality and to provide reasoned opinions runs both ways.

And it has.

TMC:

I have tried to express my opinions and reasoning thoughtfully in this forum and others. I don’t get much meaningful reaction other than: 1) “You don’t understand the catechism” - I do I just disagree with it;

Not only would you have to understand the catechism, you would have to demonstrate that you understand the catechism. Saying so does not make it so.

TMC:

1. “You don’t want to follow the rules, you want to make up you’re own rules”

I can’t comment other than to ask you: “Do you?” There are rules of reason that cannot be bent. If you try, then CAF is the place that you’ll be caught redhanded.

- this is just silly, if I made up my own rules why would I care what the Church’s rules are?

Good question. But we see this all the time. Some folks I guess want company in following their own rules. Pastor Patton comes to mind. The Church is everywhere; She has a large presence in the world; Her teaching is millenia old and is woven through Western history. CAF is enormous. To gain followers for their own rules, some folks come here to run the gauntlet of opposing Church teaching.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

TMC:

Its because I care that I dissent;

Are you open to another point of view? Do your questions require answers? Or are they rhetorical questions offered only to make your own points?

TMC:

1. “You are stupid” - always the last refuge of the frustrated debater,

Has this happened?

TMC:

and 4) “You are a pawn of Satan” - don’t know how to respond to this one, but I certainly don’t accept its truth.

Has this happened? I would not expect this from a Catholic. From some of the other denominations, yes. We get called the Whore of Babylon frequently by John Hagee. In turn we bust him at the Catholic League.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

We can define that out of “dissent,” but then I’m not sure what dissent means anymore.

Who is ‘we’?

How does the Church define ‘dissent’?

How does the Church define ‘heresy’?

Unless we gain a common understanding of what these words mean, then there is no point in discussing this.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

TMC:

I don’t claim to be an expert in infallibilty, but I think I understand the claim to inerrancy in faith and morals.

Clearly you understand neither ‘infallibility’ nor ‘inerrancy’. I would suggest that you do some looking up and retrieve the Church’s uses of these terms.

TMC:

…But I think that it remains important for Catholics today to voice their opinions, just has they have been doing since the beginning.

And voicing them they are! Opinions and deliberate mischaracterizations however are two different things. And with much of the kefuffle in Corpus and in the Women’s Ordination Conference, deliberate mischaracterization is what we are seeing.

TMC:

…There really can be no doubt, in my opinion, that disagreement is allowed and even healthy in the Church.

Of course it is. Who is disagreeing with you on this?

TMC:

Which is why I framed this question from the beginning as “how much”.

For you to understand ‘how much’ you would have to have a much clear understanding of how terms such as ‘dissent’ ‘heresy’ ‘infallible’ and ‘inerrant’ are defined by the Church. So start there.

TMC:

If its the entire catechism, then I’m afraid around 90% of Catholics aren’t Catholic, including a whole bunch of the religious.

Please give evidence that 90% of Catholics aren’t Catholic. Shows us the studies demonstrating this statistic.

TMC:

If, on the other hand, the point is that sincerely held differences are OK only if you keep them to yourself, that is hard to accept.

Who asked that differences be kept to oneself? Is this not a strawman? If Catholics are to understand, then they are to discuss. Discussion is one means to understanding. Obviously discussion involves some disagreement, some differences in understanding. Discussion however does not mean keeping differences to oneself.

It is when folks obstinately hold to error in the face of what reason tells them (because faith cannot be unreasonable) and then teach that error to the vulnerable and innocent that they are asked either to be silent or to leave.

The Church cannot have a person presuming to represent her without the laying on of hands and without the authority while at the same time that person thwarts the teaching of the Church.

Such a person is acting fraudulently.

TMC:

Is that the example set by the Saints? I don’t think it is.

Were the Saints heretics? I don’t think they were.

 

[TMC]

But I am not using that argument. I am saying that infallible teaching may not change in its essential character. Our understanding of it may grow larger, more particular, more embracing.

In other words there is no boundary condition before which infallible teaching is one thing and after which infallible teaching is another distinct thing. The analogy used is that a rose cannot change into an artichoke.

So, if you believe that a rose can change into an artichoke, then we are at an impasse and will have to agree to disagree.

Cute, but unpersuasive. If the belief that Genesis is literally true and that Adam was a man formed from clay that lived in Mesopatmia 6,000 years ago is a rosebud, then I can’t understand how it bloomed into a recognition that the first man lived in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago and evolved from lower species. If that’s the same genus of flower, I guess your analogy holds.

Galileo’s science was wrong. Galileo’s theology based on his wrong science was also wrong. Galileo was a heretic, not because he held a new scientific hypothesis. It was not new btw, it was borrowed and cobbled. He was a heretic because he transgressed the Church’s authority to teach theological truth.

Really? What exactly was wrong with his science? Galileo’s science is not considered accurate today, because it has been updated. It was a large step towards truth in his time. He is considered the “Father of Astronomy” and by some even the “Father of Modern Science.” He built on the works of others, as do all scientists. He did not teach theology. He taught heliocentrism, and he said he believed that heliocentrism did not contradict Scripture. The Pope and the Inquisition disagreed. They asked him to admit he was wrong, he refused but offered to (and did) present opposing viewpoints in his book. The Inquisition labelled him a heretic because they believed that heliocentrism would contradict the scientific inerrance of Scripture. Galileo always insisted that it did not contradict the real truth of Scripture. The Church today agrees with Galileo. He is heretic no more. But he was in 1615. He was kept under house arrest for the rest of his life.

Not only would you have to understand the catechism, you would have to demonstrate that you understand the catechism. Saying so does not make it so.

How do I do this, and to whom?