How Much Disagreement Is OK in the Church?

[DanteAlighieri]

This is said a lot on this forum and elsewhere. I don’t understand its logic. There is a pretty big gap between “this Church is the one founded by Christ” which I believe and “it teaches the Truth”, unless “Truth” is given a pretty narrow reading.

But Christ also said that “whoever listens to you [the Apostles – therefore, the Church] listens to me [Christ]. Whoever rejects you rejects me (Luke 10:16).”

Thus, whoever rejects the authority of the Church is rejecting Christ, right?

You are right about a “narrow definition of Truth” – to a point. The Church’s teaching is infallible only with regards to faith and morals. The idea that the “infallible label” applies to only a few teachings is a bit misguided, however – unless I’m very much mistaken, the Catechism of the Catholic Church bears that “label”, and it contains a great many teachings.

Infallibility is not a label that is applied; it is the inherent character of the Church’s teachings on faith and morals. The infallible ex cathedra statements by popes are few, but the Church’s moral and faith teachings are also infallible.

Thus, how is there room to disagree with them?

There is some wiggle room, I will concede, with regards to practices and disciplines, but we must still obey even if we do not agree.

Peace,
Dante

 

[SoCalRC]

Infallibility is not a label that is applied; it is the inherent character of the Church’s teachings on faith and morals. The infallible ex cathedra statements by popes are few, but the Church’s moral and faith teachings are also infallible.

Only if they are universally held to be true by the Bishops. Look at JPII’s GOSPEL OF LIFE. This is what is meant by the ‘Ordinary and Universal Magesterium’. If you look closely at the First Vatican Council documents you will see that even Papal Infallibility seemingly requires a level of consensus among the Church.

Thus, how is there room to disagree with them?

Well, the Church, through the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, has noted that there is room for disagreement on some teachings. Even a teaching like the death penalty, which has been addressed both in a Papal Encyclical and is formally part of the Catechism.

There is some wiggle room, I will concede, with regards to practices and disciplines, but we must still obey even if we do not agree.

On this I would whole heartedly agree. A Catholic should only disobey if a matter is of grave moral concern (see my post above). And by that, I mean the sort of thing that you would be willing to face the consequences of schism or heresy for.

I am actually surprised at how many Catholics here seemingly feel quite differently.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Only if they are universally held to be true by the Bishops. Look at JPII’s GOSPEL OF LIFE. This is what is meant by the ‘Ordinary and Universal Magesterium’. If you look closely at the First Vatican Council documents you will see that even Papal Infallibility seemingly requires a level of consensus among the Church.

Not being an authority on the nature and function of the Magisterium, I must say that I was presuming the universal acceptance by the bishops of a given teaching in saying that the teaching is infallible.

Well, the Church, through the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, has noted that there is room for disagreement on some teachings. Even a teaching like the death penalty, which has been addressed both in a Papal Encyclical and is formally part of the Catechism.

I can’t speak to the encyclical, but the Catechism does not categorically forbid the death penalty. It merely teaches that it is increasingly less valid in developed countries that have other means of applying justice.

Thus, there is not a dogma with which one might disagree.

On this I would whole heartedly agree. A Catholic should only disobey if a matter is of grave moral concern (see my post above). And by that, I mean the sort of thing that you would be willing to face the consequences of schism or heresy for.

Good!

The only examples that leap to mind which would fit into this category would be along the lines of what happens in Bud McFarlane’s Pierced by a Sword: an “anti-pope” is elected after a failed assassination of the real pope, and the new guy promulgates all sorts of heresies. Rejection of such teachings would certainly be justified, even though one would appear to be in schism from the Church (though this would not actually be the case).

Apart from such an extreme circumstance, can you give examples? I’m sure there are some, but this is all that occurs to me.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Pax_Tibi]

TMC
“Both of my children, who are young adults, have some issues with the Church. I tell them that if they can say the Nicene Creed and believe it they should remain in the Church. Am I right about that? If not, is there some other list of ‘must believes’? 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.”

I’ve never understood why “the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity” was never part of any formal creed. TMC, off the top of my head, other “must believes” including the above might be:
• The Immaculate Conception
• Original Sin

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

TMC
“Both of my children, who are young adults, have some issues with the Church. I tell them that if they can say the Nicene Creed and believe it they should remain in the Church. Am I right about that? If not, is there some other list of ‘must believes’? I postulated the Creed as an essential.”

Hi Pax,
I tried this argument with a Catholic bishop, (I am nominally Anglican, though heretical, and somewhat relapsed) but he disabused me saying that the Nicean Crede was not the be-all and end-all. There was much more, and the Catchism was involved.

“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.”

It seems that the catechism is not in itself the key, but it contains most of the key.
It embodies vital and auxiliary elements. The vital elements MUST be accepted, but the auxiliary elements are open to question.
Open to question means that doubt is allowed, but contrary teaching is not. Contrary teaching is by definition, heresy, and that brings about schism. That is if the contrary teaching is presented as FACT. It may be presented as OPINION.

I’ve never understood why “the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity” was never part of any formal creed.

Here is a little asside:
The Nestorian Church, following ancient teachings, uses leavened bread for the Eucharist, and the leaven is every year, intinked, and mingled with the leaven of the previous year.
This is traced back to the institution of the Eucharist, but reference has to be made to the incident on the road to Emmaus, where Our Lord broke bread for the two travellers. We know from the later reports, that Our Lord’s hands had open wounds, and the act of breaking the bread would have mingled His blood and fragment of his flesh with the Bread. It is this bread that was preserved, and added to the leaven for future years. Thus in truth, if the bread is prepared from mingled leaven, as is the practice of the Nestorians, then the bread is indeed, by enminglement, indeed the body and blood of Our Lord.

TMC, off the top of my head, other “must believes” including the above might be:
• The Immaculate Conception
• Original Sin

If these requirements are de rigeur, then I will remain an outsider. I do not consider, though this is only opinion, that Our Lord was PHYSICALLY any different fron any other NORMAL human being. Thus I doubt the virgin birth of Our Lord, and the perpetual virginity of Our Lady.
Original sin, is a Pauline belief, and is not native to Judaism today, according to Jewish friends I have met on the net, and was not in those days, apart from amongst some minor sects.
As for the ‘Filioque’ clause, I find in its present translation, it is to me unacceptable, for Our Lord always maintained that the Holy Spirit is the PRIMARY essence of the Trinity He allowed that the Father and the Son might be forgivably traduced, but traducement of the Holy Spirit was eternally fatal. So I read, not that ‘The Holy Spirit PROCEEDS from the Father and the Son’ but rather the ‘The Holy Spirit is SEEN through the Father and the Son’, understanding ‘see’ as ‘perceive’ and ‘through’ as ‘by cause of’. I substitute this clause in the crede if I find myself obliged to recite it. To do other would be to lie. That is to tell an untruth as I saw it.
In short, it is not others who will judge whether you can remain a Catholic with your doubts, but it is yourself alone.
If you can concienciously remain in the Church with your doubts, then you are still a Catholic.
If though your doubts drive you to conclude that to remain in the Church would be an act of dishonesty, even after confession, then you have already made your decision.

 

[richardwy]

how much can a Catholic disagree with the Church’s teaching and remain in the Church?

Email the Congregation of the Doctrine and Faith. Would love to know what they say.

Since you posted asking “us,” I agree with everything the Church teaches, and am thrilled that I want to and can.

Have you read any G. K. Chesterton or Hilaire Belloc?

 

[TweetyBird]

I have struggled with this issue for quite a while myself. I see the wisdom of the Church’s teachings on certain matters of faith and morals in a “big picture” way, but I do believe the Church can err in non-infallible teachings of the ordinary magisterium. I can’t honestly say I would obey the Church’s moral teaching under any and all circumstances. However, the way I see it, the Church’s teachings are due assent nonetheless, and I believe one should strive to obey them. I think it is prudent to err on the side of caution and assume that Church teachings, even non-infallible ones, are not in error. In cases where one simply cannot reconcile personal reason or conscience with Church teaching, I don’t necessarily think said person must leave the Church. I do agree with previous posters that if one behaves in a way objectively contrary to the teaching of the Church, one should not receive communion, even though it is impossible to know whether a given individual is in a state of mortal sin, both because of the individual’s subjective culpability and/or because the Church may possibly err in her non-infallible teachings. I think simple disagreement would not necessarily preclude one from receiving communion, but acting upon that disagreement or by definitively proclaiming to others that the Church is “wrong” about such-and-such, would, IMO preclude one from receiving communion. The way I try to approach such things is to assume the worst of myself, and the best of everyone else. What I mean by that is that I do my best to conform my behavior to the teaching of the Church. If I cannot or will not live according to the Church’s moral law, I assume the problem lies with me and that I am morally culpable. When others have similar struggles, I assume the best and try to avoid passing judgment about the state of their souls or whether they should “leave” the Church. I do not think public dissent and scandal should be tolerated, though.

One of the reasons that I choose to remain a Catholic (aside from the fact that I believe She is the Church Jesus founded) is precisely because Her doctrines and morals are well-defined, and defended by an authoritative hierarchy. I am just dumbfounded by certain protestant denominations that have disagreed Jesus right out of their churches. In said denominations, one finds teachings that blatantly contradict scripture, encouragement for the continuation of serious sin, and a lack of belief that Jesus is the way God has provided for man’s salvation. Jesus becomes just some good guy who lived a while back, and church becomes a place one goes for “community,” to feel good about each other and “affirm” whatever floats one’s individual boat. I have way more respect for people who call a spade a spade, and if they cannot hold to Christian doctrines, they should no longer call themselves Christians. It’s hard to say where to draw the line, but after a certain point dissent takes “Christ” right out of Christian religion.

My .02, for what it’s worth. I’m really liking this thread, btw!

 

[Barry_C_Sansom]

OK, I don’t want to derail this thread either, but I guess this topic is as good a one to use to explore this issue as any:

This is said a lot on this forum and elsewhere. I don’t understand its logic. There is a pretty big gap between “this Church is the one founded by Christ” which I believe and “it teaches the Truth”, unless “Truth” is given a pretty narrow reading.

The fact that Christ founded the Church does not of itself presuppose that ALL of the Church’s teachings are correct. I understand the basics of the doctrine of infallibility, the Church will not err in really important issue because the Holy Spirit won’t allow that.

Let me start by pointing out that I have no problem with the theory of infallibilty, and I do not deny the doctrine. But it seems that the Church has only attached the label of “infallible” to a small amount of the teachings. Most of this is contained within the Creed, except for some of the infallible Marian doctrines.

But clearly many of the Church’s other teachings have changed over the years. I know the response to this is that nothing has changed that was really important, but I feel like there is some post hoc rationalization built into that. I.e. – how do we know that wasn’t really a doctrine of the Church? Because they changed it. I’m guessing people thought things like the factual inerrancy of Scripture, Limbo, and so on were pretty important when they were still being taught.

The Church may be guided by the Holy Spirit, but it is run day to day and century to century by very fallible humans. It makes mistakes, sometime pretty big mistakes. The current Pope has said, for example, that it would be a mistake to think that the Holy Spirit picks the Pope, as we have had Popes the Holy Spirit would not have picked. I don’t know who he was referring to, but Honorius I I was later denounced by the Sixth General Council for his part in spreading the Monothelite Heresy.

So these brings me back around to my original point. The Church has stood firm by the Nicene Creed. So do I. The Church has changed some of its other teaching through the years, as our understanding has improved and evolved. So shouldn’t faithful Catholics, once they have studied and learned enough to understand the doctrines and know whether they truly disagree with them, voice their disagreements?

If you agree that there is a line to draw but think the Nicene Creed is not the right line to draw, what is the line? If you think that Catholics have no business line drawing, how do you explain the development of our faith through the centuries?

 

[quiet52]

QUOTE=Corki;2884163]
Yes, doctrines do evolve and theologians have great discussions where they push the envelope.

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.

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.

QUOTE]

Catholic doctrine is what is held to be God’s Revealed Truth, and believed and taught by the Church since the time of Jesus and apostles. It does NOT “evolve” – there are no new or changed truths.

The Catechism quotes the document Dei Verbum: “The Church, in her doctrine, life, and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.”

Dogma is NOT a new teaching of what the Church holds to be True. Dogmas are truths always held by the Church, but are clarified, or more fully explain, through time. For example, that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven has always been believed. There are prayers and writings in the early Church, and sacred art, that confirm this belief. Because of the influences of Protestantism and confusion by many Catholics, Pope Pius XII formally declared in 1950 this teaching as dogma. From the Catechism (Sec. 89): “Therr is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.”

St. Francis of Assisi was never in dissent of any Church teaching.

 

[quiet52]

=Peregrino;2885294]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.

Jesus’ teachings have endured totally because of His Church.
It is the Church, the instrument of Jesus’ salvation, who teaches us how to love God with all our hearts and to love one another as He has loved us. The Church is Holy, because she (the “bride of Christ”) was instituted by Christ – however, our brothers and sisters in the Church, past, present and future, are at various levels of holiness. When we sin, we don’t do so on behalf of the Church. When Church leaders sin or “miss the mark” as you say, it is not the Church that sins.

The Church is a visible plan of God’s love for humanity and indeed has been a structured organization since the beginning, when Jesus first called His apostles and vested them with the authority to lead His Church. It was Jesus, who is God, who made it a hierarchy (as opposed to a democracy or cafeteria). Jesus told Peter that the devil would tempt him, but told him once he turned back (to faith) he must strengthen his brothers (see Luke 22:31-32). Jesus was talking about Peter’s leadership role. Jesus would not have handed to Peter the keys of the kingdom of Heaven (authority to lead His Church – see Matthew 16:19) if he hadn’t intended for that authority to be passed down through the ages (through our other visible heads of the Church, the popes).

On the night of His last supper, Jesus showed his first apostles that as leaders of His Church they were to be servants – He washed their feet. This is what our popes, bishops, priests and deacons do – they serve us by passing on the deposit of faith preserved by the Church, and by sanctifying us through the sacraments.

Jesus told his first followers that His Advocate (the Holy Spirit) would be with His Church for all time – to guide, sustain and sanctify her.

When Saul was stricken blind while on his way to Damascus to arrest more Christians, he heard God’s voice: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” – God didn’t ask “…my Church” but “me” – see Acts 9:1-8. Jesus is not apart from His Church because the Church is the Body of Christ.

I don’t know what you mean by “organism” – but if you mean that the Church is alive, well, she certainly is.

Read what St. Paul wrote to the Ephesians (3:7-12):

“Of this I became a minister by the gift of God’s grace that was granted me in accord with the exercise of his power. To me, the very least of all the holy ones, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the inscrutable riches of Christ, and to bring to light [for all] what is the plan of the mystery hidden from ages past in God who created all things, so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made kown through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens. This was according to the eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness of speech and confidence of access through faith in him.”

 

[TeresaElizabeth]

A good question to ask is, “Why is a person disagreeing with the Church?”

Does the person feel that insufficient substantiation for doctrines, etc., has been presented?

That person should remember how rich sacred Tradition is, and recall that Jesus spent days and days after His resurrection, teaching His disciples.
And–if were an issue–I’d rather be wrong with Christ’s precious Church.

Does the person see that a teaching or a leader is causing harm to the body of Christ?

That person should spend more time being a help to the Church. As the prophets of old, proclaiming error isn’t for the purpose of destroying the people of God, but restoring them.

Does the person think that their reasonable conclusion, being in contradiction with the Church’s teaching, deserves recognition?

Protesting, as we all know, has been done in that style before–and didn’t further the unity our Lord desired. Besides, I can’t see how anyone could think they had one up on all of the Doctors of the Church, and so many wonderful Teachers. Truth cannot be new, and it’s very unlikely that anyone on this forum would stumble across a completely new (or at least, a recycled kind of new) idea that would shake the venerable, beautiful Church.

 

[Roy5]

Hm! I wonder if I belong in the Catholic Church. I like to think things through myself and certainly have many doubts. Take transubstantiation as one example. The idea that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus troubles it. It smacks too much of the primitive notion that human sacrifice was required to appease the gods. There is something upsetting about the notion that God had to kill his only Son - and offer him up over and over on the altar - to appease his Father and for us to enter heaven. And the idea that those good folks who don’t or can’t believe this are kept out of heaven seems cruel.

I also have serious reservations about Mary - the Immaculate Conception and Assumption and those various apparitions at Fatima, Guadalupe, Lourdes, etc. That she was a blessed woman - of course. But some of the Marian emphasis strikes me as bordering on paganism.

 Soes a person with such doubts belong in some liberal Protestant church instead of in the Catholic Church?

 

[robben29]

To me, it would seem to take a great deal of hubris to dissent or disagree with a 2,000-year old institution you believe is guided at all by the Holy Spirit through great Saints and theologians. I am neither, of course. Still, the more I study it, the more it totally fits together and makes sense.

 

[TeresaElizabeth]

Hm! I wonder if I belong in the Catholic Church. I like to think things through myself and certainly have many doubts.

You’re not alone. Scott Hahn and the other good Catholic apologists aren’t short on logic, that’s for sure. Just keep in mind the good words of Flannery O’Connor, a Catholic writer: “I find it reasonable to believe, even though these beliefs are beyond reason.” Our finite minds have limits when it comes to an infinite God.

Take transubstantiation as one example. The idea that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus troubles it. It smacks too much of the primitive notion that human sacrifice was required to appease the gods.

Or perhaps those primitive notions were distortions of God’s truth? Hebrews 9:22–“Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”

There is something upsetting about the notion that God had to kill his only Son - and offer him up over and over on the altar - to appease his Father and for us to enter heaven.

Jesus–fully God, fully man–freely offered Himself up for us. There is something stunning, something amazing about that kind of love.

And for the “over and over”–please get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). Paragraph 1330 says, “it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior” (emphasis mine)

And the idea that those good folks who don’t or can’t believe this are kept out of heaven seems cruel.

Again, please read what the Church teaches in the CCC. There are some on-line versions that are searchable.

I also have serious reservations about Mary - the Immaculate Conception and Assumption and those various apparitions at Fatima, Guadalupe, Lourdes, etc. That she was a blessed woman - of course. But some of the Marian emphasis strikes me as bordering on paganism.

The Church and its teachings form a beautiful whole. The Church is the Body of Christ, and if you look at any one part in stark isolation, you can no longer understand its context and relevance. Teachings on Mary are the same. A perfect Son perfectly honors His mother–and that isn’t paganism, it’s love!

[D]oes a person with such doubts belong in some liberal Protestant church instead of in the Catholic Church?

Nope! That person belongs to a loving God Who understands human frailties, and the best place is in the Church, where prayers and searching will help the doubts.

God bless you!
~T.E.

 

[TMC]

Hm! I wonder if I belong in the Catholic Church. I like to think things through myself and certainly have many doubts. Take transubstantiation as one example. The idea that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus troubles it. It smacks too much of the primitive notion that human sacrifice was required to appease the gods. There is something upsetting about the notion that God had to kill his only Son - and offer him up over and over on the altar - to appease his Father and for us to enter heaven. And the idea that those good folks who don’t or can’t believe this are kept out of heaven seems cruel.

I also have serious reservations about Mary - the Immaculate Conception and Assumption and those various apparitions at Fatima, Guadalupe, Lourdes, etc. That she was a blessed woman - of course. But some of the Marian emphasis strikes me as bordering on paganism.

 **Does a person with such doubts belong in some liberal Protestant church instead of in the Catholic Church?**

This is the exact reason I began this thread. Not that my reservations are the same as yours, they are not, but to find an answer for myself to your last question. This thread and others here at CAF have provided me a lot of food for thought. Here is what I think –

If you believe that Christ intended that there be one Church on earth, and you believe that the current Church is a descendant of that early Church you belong in the Catholic Church. If you can pray the Creed and believe it, even if some parts seem unimportant or difficult to understand, you belong in the Church.

What I have come to believe is that it doesn’t matter if other people in the Church can handle the fact that you have doubts about, or flat out don’t believe, certain Church teachings. If you can handle that fact, then you belong in the Church.

I have flirted with the idea of leaving and finding a denomination that believed everything exactly as I do. But I’m staying. I think that for all its faults and mistakes, and they are many, the RCC is the Church, and I am staying.

 

[Roy5]

OK. I’ve appreciated the responses to my theological doubts and the patience of such responders. I failed to say that I have trouble reciting any of the creeds, as they seem to be a straight-jacket for an inquiring mind. Isn’t it hypocritical for me to profess that I believe something about which I have such serious doubts?

 Let me mention another area of doubt. It's in the realm of ethics, specifically birth control and even abortion. As for birth control, does the church have the right to tell a married couple that they must risk more and more and more children or practice abstinence? The so-called natural system is very if-y and married expressions of intimate love should be able to be both spontaneous and free from the burden of great anxiety. 

 As for abortion: true, that normally is very wrong, but there can be rare occasions when it may be the lesser of two evils. What if the mother's life (and she has several other young children) is at great risk? What about rape or incest? I can even understand when parents hesitate to bring a badly deformed child into the world. How does that help the child, the parents, other family members, or society as a whole? The situation already is a very difficult one for parents and to saddle them with additional guilt can seem unfair, judgmental, and even unChristian. Our loving God will ultimately handle this in a just manner.

  Keep smiling.

 

[pnewton]

I have flirted with the idea of leaving and finding a denomination that believed everything exactly as I do.

That would have to be a denomination of one for most everybody.

I think you have started a good thread and would like to jump in.

Disagreement is tied closely with the concept of primacy of conscience. I do not think the catechism has gone off on a new teaching with this idea, but has formalized what a basic ethical principle that we must above all “to thine own self be true.” It was said that the conscience is the pupil and the Church is the teacher. That is true, but even a pupil must take time to learn and must first know from whom to learn. If one is Catholic, there must first be the understanding that being Catholic is what God wants of us. Then we can open up to this teacher. If one can not do that, it would best to settle this issue first. An error in the beginning is an error indeed.

Once one has accepted the teaching authority of the Church, it does not follow that one accepts all the teaching of the Church. This is a process. Those of us with too much pride make poor pupils and may take a long time to come to grips with some doctrines. I know my big hang-up was Marian doctrine. Yet since I knew this area was so core to Catholicism, I made it priority to learn more and understand why we pray to Mary and the saints. But at no time did I reject the doctrine. I accepted my dissent as based in my ignorance. I have since learned that I was not alone in this particular hurdle.

 

[Ellen_G]

I was moved by the last post where it was mentioned that the person had issues with Mary, but accepted the Church’s authority. This statement said so much regarding our problems in today’s world. It seems that so many of us have become experts without having the proper credentials. I recently was told that Pope John Paul read True Devotion To Mary three times before he understood the devotion. He then consecrated himself to our Mother and his Motto became Totus Tuus. We need more adult education and we need to see the Church as our guiding light. We also need to develop a personal relationship with our Lord and this comes through prayer and fasting. Our Lady of Medjugorye never gives up on us! She is telling us that it is urgent that we listen to her before it is too late. Having spent two years in the novitiate that was dedicated to True Devotion, I marvel @ the wisdom of Pope John Paul and our German Shepard – To Jesus Through Mary.

 

[po18guy]

I have to disagree with your characterization of Jordan’s post. Adam and Eve willfully did what they knew was wrong. Jordan is saying that he is having trouble reconciling his conscience with the Church’s teachings. The Bible does not say that Eve came to believe that eating the fruit was not against God’s will, but that knowing it was against God’s will she did it anyway. Catholicism requires study, reflection and prayer to conform our well-formed conscience to the teachings of the Church. But when, despite our study and prayer, our conscience remains in dissent, we must remain in dissent. We are obliged to study and pray for understanding. We are also required to act in the way that we believe with a true and pure heart is correct. That is what the catechism teaches.

Yes, but what of obedience and humility? Christ commanded the Apostles to teach obedience to His commands. Humility was lead off by John Baptist exclaiming: “He must increase, I must decrease”. Even a slight deviance from obedience and humility eventually leads to… well, Luther.

Our lives are not our own. We have received a gift and it will be recalled when we least suspect. We in America have a particular problem with obedience. In the 1800s we founded a bazillion denominations - the church, not of “I AM” but of “I”.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Barry_C_Sansom]

Barry_C_Sansom:
I seem to have posted a comment on 'How Much Disagreement is OK in The Church?

I appologise for this as it was done in error (not fully understanding how these forums work) whilst reading a post written and attributed to another party. The post in question: ‘How much Disagreement is OK within The Church?’ does not reflect my views and is not written by or attributable to me.