How much do you need to agree on to be Catholic?

[ralphinal]

Let me ask you. If the pope decides that your parish needs to be closed down and the members of your parish are opposed to the decision…when push comes to shove, who wins? Imagine if your bishop asked the pope if he could put the churches teachings on birth control to a vote…does the pope agree or does he remind the bishop to remember his place? Imagine if the pope were to decide to put some of the many pieces of art in the Vatican on sale to raise administrative funds. Could he? Then imagine if your bishop decided to put some of the many pieces of art in the Vatican on sale to raise to raise money to build a new parish…could he without the pope’s approval? Does the pope need the approval of the flock to do something? When can the flock do something that the pope opposes and still remain in good standing with the church?

None of that proves ownership. In fact, the answer to many of those could be “I am not the owner, I have no authority to change this.”

Selling the art is a funny point. The pope could sell it yes, but the local bishops or priests do not have the right to. Can I sell a painting hanging in the White HOuse? Nope.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

None of that proves ownership. In fact, the answer to many of those could be “I am not the owner, I have no authority to change this.”

Selling the art is a funny point. The pope could sell it yes, but the local bishops or priests do not have the right to. Can I sell a painting hanging in the White HOuse? Nope.

Also the fact that there exists protocol for deposing of a heretical Pope proves that the Pope in no way “owns” the church.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

But what if you are not at this level of belief for that one point? What if instead you harbor some level of doubt? Then you don’t know that it is true.

From what I am reading, you have absolutely no business being a Catholic if that is the case. Do I misunderstand.

You’re allowed to have doubts, but the doubt must be because you don’t understand how you shouldn’t have the doubt you do have.

Having those doubts don’t make you not-Catholic. What makes you not-Catholic is to doubt the truth of truth, and not the doubt of why truth is truth.

Because if you are not 100% buy in on this point, you can not make the leap that you propose and assume that “it can’t be wrong”.

Nearly everyone gets this backward.

We don’t make the “leap of faith” because it’s been proved that the leap is safe. We leap because it’s the only place to go.

That was the whole point of “Master, to whom shall we go?” (Jn:6:68)

We’ve seen what the Church has to offer, and the miracles she has done. Why should one “hard saying” force us away?

This sort of makes me wonder if all Catholics really are at this minimal level of belief and whether those that are not should be excommunicated? But those are the idle wanderings of a bored mind.

It’s quite obvious, considering their “probable voting choices” during this election, that a “very sizable plurality” of Catholics are “nominal”, at best.

Actual disciplinary matters are, thank God, buíchas le Dia., not mine to make.

This ain’t no simple social club, but she does get treated that way rather often,… 'sea, mhuise!

:shamrock2:

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Would anyone disagree that it is OK to be struggling to accept it or trying to conform you mind and will? That comes with time, prayer, and faith. THe problem comes when you outright reject it.

Any disagreement?

Beautiful!

This is exactly why it irritates me a bit when certain folks run with “A Catholic must believe everything the church teaches when she teaches it” as if the actual act of belief is something that we can turn on or off at will like a light switch.

I think this is exactly why the catechism uses the language it uses. The openness to accepting Church teaching and having faith that the Magisterium will not steer your wrong is the immediate reaction that is expected of all Catholics.

Forming one’s conscience and active thought to such teaching can and does take time, patience, and sometimes even struggle.

I feel the more simplistic answer almost relays “struggling with belief” as a mortal sin in itself, which simply isn’t true.

 

[ralphinal]

Beautiful!

This is exactly why it irritates me a bit when certain folks run with “A Catholic must believe everything the church teaches when she teaches it” as if the actual act of belief is something that we can turn on or off at will like a light switch.

I think this is exactly why the catechism uses the language it uses. The openness to accepting Church teaching and having faith that the Magisterium will not steer your wrong is the immediate reaction that is expected of all Catholics.

Forming one’s conscience and active thought to such teaching can and does take time, patience, and sometimes even struggle.

I feel the more simplistic answer almost relays “struggling with belief” as a mortal sin in itself, which simply isn’t true.

Exactly.

Also, I think that there is a difference with struggling with believing the teachings and struggling with the Church’s right to teach it. One is normal, one is a major sin.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I think that there is a difference with struggling with believing the teachings and struggling with the Church’s right to teach it. One is normal, one is a major sin.

Exactly, and I think this distinction is lost on a lot of people, which is likely what gives rise to the simplistic clichés we hear about assent to church teaching.

I can lend myself as a personal example:

Right now, I’m struggling with actively believing the church’s teaching with regards to the impotent and marriage.

Now if I were to be struggling with the church’s fundamental right to teach this, I would easily brush it off and walk the walk of a Cafeteria Catholic. “Forget about it! Magisterium doesn’t know what she’s talking about!”

But this isn’t the case. I’m having trouble forming my CONSCIENCE to the LAW (compared to the other way around), so instead of getting angry with the church and determining a way to disprove the teaching, I’m putting my faith in the church Christ established by at least attempting to learn more about the prohibition. Daily, I’m praying for wisdom and along with that I’ve started a thread about it here hoping that dialog with rank-and-file Catholics might help me understand. I’m planning to inquire of this from my RCIA instructor, and I’m searching for “Theology of the Body” apologetics hoping that the profession theologians might be able to reason this teaching for me.

If all else fails, I’ll hopefully find a priest with whom I may speak in person about this.

 

[With_Questions]

You’re allowed to have doubts, but the doubt must be because you don’t understand how you shouldn’t have the doubt you do have.

Having those doubts don’t make you not-Catholic. What makes you not-Catholic is to doubt the truth of truth, and not the doubt of why truth is truth.

OK.

Then what I am hearing is that it is OK to have doubts on everything except “The Biggie” which of course is.

“The Catholic Church is exclusively the one church of Jesus Christ and it is impossible for it to be wrong in anything that it teaches.”

What is curious then to me is how it is possible that if this is the mandatory belief that you must be at “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” level before becoming Catholic, how anybody, particularly a Protestant, can in good conscience become a Catholic.

 

[ralphinal]

OK.

Then what I am hearing is that it is OK to have doubts on everything except “The Biggie” which of course is.

“The Catholic Church is exclusively the one church of Jesus Christ and it is impossible for it to be wrong in anything that it teaches.”

What is curious then to me is how it is possible that if this is the mandatory belief that you must be at “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” level before becoming Catholic, how anybody, particularly a Protestant, can in good conscience become a Catholic.

Actually, no there are other points that you must accept without doubt.

But, specifically, people become aware of what the Church claims is true then convert.

 

[Annie_B]

The Pope says no Cafeteria Catholics, and since he owns the church that mean you pretty much have to accept it all.

Wow - the Pope OWNS the church Never heard that one before…

Annie

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
You’re allowed to have doubts, but the doubt must be because you don’t understand how you shouldn’t have the doubt you do have.

Having those doubts don’t make you not-Catholic. What makes you not-Catholic is to doubt the truth of truth, and not the doubt of why truth is truth.

OK.

Then what I am hearing is that it is OK to have doubts on everything except “The Biggie” which of course is:

“The Catholic Church is exclusively the one church of Jesus Christ and it is impossible for it to be wrong in anything that it teaches.”

What is curious then to me is how it is possible that if this is the mandatory belief that you must be at “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” level before becoming Catholic, how anybody, particularly a Protestant, can in good conscience become a Catholic.

That’s why they call it a “leap of faith”.

The Church (Catholic) IS the one true and only Church of The Holy Trinity. Period. That must be believed.

But other moral/ethical institutions have some access to the deposit of faith, even if they are utterly isolated from ANY contact with ANY OTHER CULTURE (Christian, “western” or otherwise) as they have access to natural law by listening to the “wee small voice” within them.

The mere fact that a person of “some other faith”, which in the case of other Christian groups, for example, claim that “faith” is not proof and that they are Christians because they are “faithful” and not because they are “proof-supplied”, can be faithful about their religion and not grant that it’s OK for Catholics to be faithful to theirs is an “interesting” statement about them.

The truth is not looking for validation of it’s truth-ness. It is looking to help others see truth AS truth (as truth is persons).

To believe the truth is not to be convinced. It is to allow one’s self to see the truth, which when seen becomes believed.

Those who can’t give to truth what truth demands will take what parts of truth they can. (Which very nearly rhymes! )

:shamrock2:

 

[FM927]

Just out of curiosity: If someone IS a cafeteria catholic, believes in God with all his/her soul but does not agree with everything the church teaches, what can that person do? Change religions? I know everyone is going to say that that person should also agree with everything the Church says to be a real catholic but if that is not possible, if that would make that person feel like an hypocrite,
what can that person do?

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t understand that question, FM927. I’m not going to tell you to just can it and accept everything, but it is confusing me because it separates loving and following the Lord from loving and following the Church, and what I have come to believe in my ~3 years as a Catholic is that the two are inseperable. When you become part of the Church, it is after coming to the understanding that it is CHRIST’S CHURCH, so what it teaches is not in contradiction ever with what He has taught. So how can you disagree with any of its teachings and still love God with all your soul? I don’t understand this.

As to the OPs question: We all have our faults. Of course it takes some time (sometimes a long time) before you come to understand the teachings that, at first glance, seem “wrong” or “strange” to you. I have been Catholic for almost three years now and there is still much I am learning. The key, I think, is to be open to the truth that is embodied in the Church. In a way, you have to be willing to give up your own desire to control things. This was and still is a HUGE issue for me in relation to the Church. For me, it wasn’t/isn’t that there is any one specific dogma that I disagree with, but the idea that I completely give up everything that I had grown up with (as a Presbyterian) and conform myself to a lot of new rules that I had never heard before and in most cases didn’t understand. But once I relinquished that “self-control” (in quotes because now I realize I never really had any to begin with), I became more able to look at the doctrines of the Church with an open mind. I was there to begin with because I had the feeling that this was probably right; through RCIA and a looooot of studying (still ongoing), I am every day shown that it is IN FACT right. The truth is there…I had to grow up a bit to see it.

There is still a lot I get a twinge of unfamiliarity about, just because there is no parallel to much of this in the form of Christianity I was brought up in. Veneration of the Saints is one such thing…I know (and agree with!) the reasons for doing it, but when it comes to doing it myself by kneeling at a statue…I don’t know. I don’t know why, but it still seems like one of those things that only cradle Catholics intuitively understand. I don’t think it’s idol worship or anything like that, but I am a lot more comfortable with the Orthodox way (the Saints are still venerated, but with two-dimensional pictures, never three-dimensional statues). This was also the case when I learned to cross myself and was reprimanded by doing it “the Orthodox way” (right to left, though I still did it with my left hand…com’on, that’s really close! Don’t Eastern Catholics do it this way? Maybe I’m just in the “wrong” rite?). Oops!

So I wouldn’t feel bad if I were you…go to RCIA, and pray incessantly that you be open to the truth. It is there, you just need to show up ready to learn!

 

[mariyka]

Just out of curiosity: If someone IS a cafeteria catholic, believes in God with all his/her soul but does not agree with everything the church teaches, what can that person do? Change religions? I know everyone is going to say that that person should also agree with everything the Church says to be a real catholic but if that is not possible, if that would make that person feel like an hypocrite,
what can that person do?

When I see a disconnect between the teachings of the Church and what is popular to believe, I learn as much as I can about it, and have found that the Church is consistent with what it teaches.

 

[nebula]

Just jump on in and let the differences sort themselves out. If you follow your conscience while giving the Church the benefit of the doubt, you won’t go wrong. No one is expecting you to suddenly have a lifetime of understanding. Just make an effort.

First and foremost, the Church is about unity. Otherwise it would be just be another denomination. And if it has room for a Mormon occultist, it has room for you.

I’m not convinced that it *really *has room for you tsuzuki or that you’re really a catholic OR mormon, but that’s another story.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Just out of curiosity: If someone IS a cafeteria catholic, believes in God with all his/her soul but does not agree with everything the church teaches, what can that person do? Change religions? I know everyone is going to say that that person should also agree with everything the Church says to be a real catholic but if that is not possible, if that would make that person feel like an hypocrite,

what can that person do?

Do you know what “docility” means?

“That person” has free will and CAN do whatever they want to do, but what SHOULD they do, is the question.

They SHOULD see that their job is not to change the Church, but rather to change themselves to conform to the rightful authority of the Church as to the truth (of what the Church says is truth).

If that person can’t be docile before the Church, then that person should (though no one ever does) refuse to take communion, go to Mass and sit before the Holy Sacrament much more, and pray for the grace to shed their pridefulness.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

First and foremost, the Church is about unity. Otherwise it would be just be another denomination. And if it has room for a Mormon occultist, it has room for you.

No. The Church is foremost about TRUTH, and not unity at truth’s expense!

The unity, or rather UNIVERSAL-NESS, of the Church is not dependent on ANYTHING that men do. It is simply a FACT that all individuals within humanity are a part of the Church, though they are at various distances from full communion with her.

Since all persons actually do exist within the Church, we are all in union in that respect, but where we are not in union with (congruent with) the truths of the Church (in doctrinal union) we are not in union with her, and can’t claim THAT unity while we can claim the former unity with the Church by simple membership in humanity.

(( …which is most likely what you meant in the first place! ))

:shamrock2:

 

[SIA]

Sorry about the long title there, but here it is. As you may have noted, I am an ex momon turned monotheist, and now I am trying to decide where to go with my faith now. I have a strong desire to worship God so I know I need direction. Now I’ve already been baptized into the RCC church as an infant, and there are many things that I find attractive about it so I have determined to look into it. I’ve sent out an email concerning possibly going to RCIA and going from there, but as I’m sitting around waiting to hear back and talk to someone I have a question for you all because this weighs on my mind.

Exactly how much do you have to agree with RCC policy to be a Catholic? For example, I disagree with the stance the church has taken on birth control. Is that going to be a huge problem? Or say that I generally disagree with abortion but agree with certain medical exceptions?

Thanks for your help!

A very political question will get you an equally political answer.

 

[nebula]

I don’t understand that question, FM927. I’m not going to tell you to just can it and accept everything, but it is confusing me because it separates loving and following the Lord from loving and following the Church, and what I have come to believe in my ~3 years as a Catholic is that the two are inseperable. When you become part of the Church, it is after coming to the understanding that it is CHRIST’S CHURCH, so what it teaches is not in contradiction ever with what He has taught. So how can you disagree with any of its teachings and still love God with all your soul? I don’t understand this.

As to the OPs question: We all have our faults. Of course it takes some time (sometimes a long time) before you come to understand the teachings that, at first glance, seem “wrong” or “strange” to you. I have been Catholic for almost three years now and there is still much I am learning. The key, I think, is to be open to the truth that is embodied in the Church. In a way, you have to be willing to give up your own desire to control things. This was and still is a HUGE issue for me in relation to the Church. For me, it wasn’t/isn’t that there is any one specific dogma that I disagree with, but the idea that I completely give up everything that I had grown up with (as a Presbyterian) and conform myself to a lot of new rules that I had never heard before and in most cases didn’t understand. But once I relinquished that “self-control” (in quotes because now I realize I never really had any to begin with), I became more able to look at the doctrines of the Church with an open mind. I was there to begin with because I had the feeling that this was probably right; through RCIA and a looooot of studying (still ongoing), I am every day shown that it is IN FACT right. The truth is there…I had to grow up a bit to see it.

There is still a lot I get a twinge of unfamiliarity about, just because there is no parallel to much of this in the form of Christianity I was brought up in. Veneration of the Saints is one such thing…I know (and agree with!) the reasons for doing it, but when it comes to doing it myself by kneeling at a statue…I don’t know. I don’t know why, but it still seems like one of those things that only cradle Catholics intuitively understand. I don’t think it’s idol worship or anything like that, but I am a lot more comfortable with the Orthodox way (the Saints are still venerated, but with two-dimensional pictures, never three-dimensional statues). This was also the case when I learned to cross myself and was reprimanded by doing it “the Orthodox way” (right to left, though I still did it with my left hand…com’on, that’s really close! Don’t Eastern Catholics do it this way? Maybe I’m just in the “wrong” rite?). Oops!

So I wouldn’t feel bad if I were you…go to RCIA, and pray incessantly that you be open to the truth. It is there, you just need to show up ready to learn!

dz that’s good advice. I’m not closed to learning so I’ll just see what happens.

 

[nebula]

A very political question will get you an equally political answer.

sia, how do you figure this is political? It isn’t to me. I don’t define myself as a liberal, so try again.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thanks for the honest answer Ralph. Those are pretty much the only objections I came to, I’m sure I’ll run into a couple more things along the way. I guess I’ll look into it and see before I get too excited over those issues.

Actually you probably have another objection to church teaching. If you don’t accept the church teaching on birth control, then you presumably also don’t believe that the church teaches infallibly on faith and morals. Because if you believed that, then you would be something like ‘I don’t really see whats wrong with birth control, but if the church teachings its wrong, it must be’.

In practice you’ll still be able to return to the faith and receive the sacraments. The church would still consider you catholic if you were baptized catholic, even if you disowned the church long ago. But you should pray to develop a greater understanding of the gift God has given us by infallibly guiding the church through the centuries.