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

[CatsAndDogs]

I tend to look upon belief as a continuum with the following points along the way:
(1) God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

This is the necessary response to any dogmatic truth from the Magisterium.

(2) I believe it, but am open to changing my mind if I am wrong.

What you really mean is that a belief seems “possible wrong”. If a dogma is seen as “possibly wrong” then we are to believe it, and work to find out WHY we think it is wrong so that we can correct ourselves so as to see that it is correct, and not hold the attitude that the dogma is actually wrong.

In other words, we are in error, but we don’t know HOW we are in error, and therefore have a doubt about a belief. Our doubt is a signal that we need some education on the matter, and must find out why we’re doubting, so that we can get over it.

(3) Good grief, I have no idea whether that is true or not.

Since we’re talking about dogma here, and those other disciplinary things that we’re committed to agree with, this is usually a special case of #2 above.

In this case, we’ve probably never been aware of this belief before, aka it’s a surprise!, and we should look into why it is to be believed, in as joyful a way (as usual) as possible!

(4) I’m skeptical of it, but who knows I might be wrong. So persuade me please.

Once again, this is another special case of #2. In this case, we’ve had some counter-belief which needs to be overcome before we can fully believe this one. The answer, once again, is to do some homework to discover why it is right to believe this. We will probably have to “unlearn” a few things to get there.

(5) No way Jose! That is from the pits of hell.

This should never happen when considering a Catholic dogma, but if it does then it is an especially important case of #4. Lots and LOTS of praying is required to get through this one, but this is the case where the absolutely greatest advances toward holiness can happen.

Now, if you’re getting this reaction to a proposed dogma that isn’t from the Magisterium, then you need to check out what the Magisterium says about this belief, which is one of the major ways that people end up coming into the Church (Catholic).

:shamrock2:

 

[With_Questions]

I’ll press you on this part of your answer with just a couple of questions.

What you really mean is that a belief seems “possible wrong”.

Yup. You might look at 2-4 as probabilities. I might be 90% sure that a certain belief is true but have my doubts. That would be a 2 on my scale. You might be 10% sure that a belief is true, but are open enough to at least be persuaded. That would be a 4 on my scale.

The commonality between a 2 and a 4 is that you are uncertain either way.

If a dogma is seen as “possibly wrong” then we are to believe it, and work to find out WHY we think it is wrong so that we can correct ourselves so as to see that it is correct, and not hold the attitude that the dogma is actually wrong.

But how can you believe it if it might be wrong?

Belief is based on evidence. At least that is how it is with me. The middle points on my scale are indicative of insufficient evidence to conclusively accept or conclusively reject any point of faith.

The only way I see you can go to a (1) or (5) is evidence provided to you that makes you change your position. Again, that is the way it is with me.

In other words, we are in error, but we don’t know HOW we are in error, and therefore have a doubt about a belief. Our doubt is a signal that we need some education on the matter, and must find out why we’re doubting, so that we can get over it.

Or our doubt is a signal that there is insufficient evidence to move you firmly to “for” or “against”.

At least that is the way it is with me. Who knows, I might be weird.

 

[nebula]

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

That’s cute all, but I think any intelligent person recognizes that there is a difference between religious and spiritual claims to reality and the nitty gritty of how it plays out in the real world. It’s the latter I refer to.

This question really was meant for Catholics to answer, nto jokesters.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
What you really mean is that a belief seems “possible wrong”.

Yup. You might look at 2-4 as probabilities. I might be 90% sure that a certain belief is true but have my doubts. That would be a 2 on my scale. You might be 10% sure that a belief is true, but are open enough to at least be persuaded. That would be a 4 on my scale.

The commonality between a 2 and a 4 is that you are uncertain either way.

Your scale is one of levels of doubt.

But what you are asked to believe, if the request is coming from the Church (Catholic), is NOT to be disbelieved, though you are allowed to not understand WHY you have some “level of doubt”.

The whole point is that your “levels of doubt” are to be dealt with in only sightly different ways, and they all have to do with the energy required to reconcile YOURSELF with the CHURCH, and have nothing whatsoever to do with determining the TRUTH of the proposed dogma (unless the dogma is non-Catholic, of course).

As you rise in your scale (larger number) you have more “work” to do:

• At 1, you have only to hear, as you already understand.
• At 2, you partially understand so as to find the belief useful, but you don’t understand well enough to see “above” it’s usefulness to it’s necessity.
• At 3, you have negligible understanding of it and don’t even see it’s usefulness, and you obviously can’t see it’s necessity.
• At 4, you have no understanding of it and see a usefulness to actually NOT believing it. It’s seems, at best, unnecessary.
• At 5, you understand it only in an imagined negative sense, and see it as not only not useful but necessarily harmful.

The fact remains, though, that the proposed belief is to be believed, if it is Catholic dogma, and the necessary action, on your part, is to find out the “missing understanding” and "missing “usefulness/necessity” of the belief you’re working on.

The “energy barrier” that must be passed through for any particular belief is a measure of it’s importance to the salvation of your soul.

:shamrock2:

 

[MomblessedX3]

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

Hang on! Back the truck up a little bit.

I must have missed something HUGE!

When did the Pope purchase the Catholic Church? I thought he was just the leader of the Church?

How much did he pay? Last time I checked the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church and the Lord above is the only owner. We are merely followers.

Am I wrong about this?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
If a dogma is seen as “possibly wrong” then we are to believe it, and work to find out WHY we think it is wrong so that we can correct ourselves so as to see that it is correct, and not hold the attitude that the dogma is actually wrong.

But how can you believe it if it might be wrong?

It can’t be wrong. That is the primary axiom. If a dogma seems wrong, and you can’t find a way to reconcile yourself such that it doesn’t continue to seem wrong, then you need to re-quadruple your efforts to reconcile yourself to it’s being correct, and if you STILL can’t reconcile yourself to that belief, then you have a fundamental choice.

That choice is the hell of remaining unreconciled to it and distancing yourself from close communion with God’s Church, or the heaven, well, PURGATORY actually, of simply believing said belief in expectation of the wisdom of it’s being held being shown to you eventually.

That is what hell is, and what purgatory is.

Belief is based on evidence. At least that is how it is with me. The middle points on my scale are indicative of insufficient evidence to conclusively accept or conclusively reject any point of faith.

One always has to wait for SOME measure of time for evidence to appear. The experiment must happen before the results can be evaluated.

Belief, which is a noun, is a component of faith, which is a verb. We hope, which is a verb, that that which the belief should supply, which is both “evidence” and “a good”, will be supplied by faithful belief in hope.

CONTINUED belief, and not “naked/initial” belief, is based on evidence, which is supplied by faith in hope.

INITIAL belief is based on hope of a promised “good”, and not “evidence”

The only way I see you can go to a (1) or (5) is evidence provided to you that makes you change your position. Again, that is the way it is with me.

But you don’t “progress” on your scale!

When you are presented with a belief, you “find yourself” on a “number” on your scale, and do what is required for that “number”, and if successful (which means you have reconciled yourself to believing that belief) you pass “out” of your scale into a state of “belief”, or “heresy”.

:shamrock2:

 

[O.S.Luke]

If someone has been previously sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation), can they become Catholic?

 

[Harpazo]

If someone has been previously sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation), can they become Catholic?

Shlom lokh oH,

Yes they can, assuming they are truly repentent and understand what the Holy Catholic Church teaches that it is disordered to purposefully sterilize oneself for the reason to avoid having children. However, in the event that they had to have such a procedure for medical reasons (in other words not for the reason of avoiding children) then the Holy Catholic Church will most likely accept that as a valid reason.

Hope that helps.

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
In other words, we are in error, but we don’t know HOW we are in error, and therefore have a doubt about a belief. Our doubt is a signal that we need some education on the matter, and must find out why we’re doubting, so that we can get over it.

Or our doubt is a signal that there is insufficient evidence to move you firmly to “for” or “against”.

At least that is the way it is with me. Who knows, I might be weird.

But there is no “Against”? That is your basic error.

“Insufficient evidence” is proof of nothing other than that evidence has not yet been presented (to the “judge of evidence”).

The “default” position is that we are to believe dogma. Period.

Any “movement” off that position is an incorrect movement, as the object being moved must always be the “not-yet believer”.

If one’s “default position” is anything other than that (Catholic) dogma is to be believed, even if one is not sure how or why, then one is not interested in being Catholic.

What shows actual interest in being Catholic, as opposed to just wanting to be associated with the “one of many denominations” Catholic “little-c” church, is the acceptance of this required “default position”.

(( I dare say that a good half of the people in the pews at Mass every Sunday aren’t really holders of this “default position”. ))

:shamrock2:

 

[ralphinal]

If someone has been previously sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation), can they become Catholic?

Yep. No sin is too big to be forgiven. There is not even a requirement to reverse it if possible.

 

[Genesis315]

(1)“God said it, I believe it, that settles it”.

As someone noted, this is the key. Once you determine that the Catholic Church was entrusted with God’s truth for our salvation then you can apply (1) to every doctrine of the faith that has been handed down from the Apostles.

That’s what the Catholic faith is all about–it’s the totality of what God has expressed of His love for us. See it as love and receive it all, no matter what the troubles it causes you in this life…have faith in God’s love that He knows what’s best (even if we can’t understand; the Father knows best than the child) it will pay off in the end

It’s not about agreeing, it’s about receiving–and receiving the love of God (and handing it on to others) is how we are saved!

 

[Lisa44]

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!

Hi Nebula,
I will echo what others here have said. Yes, you do have to agree.

I think if you disagree with church teachings then you have to examine that and also examine why you want to be a Catholic if you disagree with fundamental Catholic teachings.



Remember there is also grace, and sometimes one doesn’t understand something but through grace it can be possible to change ones views. I would proceed if I was you, and after RCIA see how you feel. If you still totally disagree with certain teachings then I would be honest about that and talk to a Priest about it. See what he says.

 

[With_Questions]

It can’t be wrong. That is the primary axiom. If a dogma seems wrong, and you can’t find a way to reconcile yourself such that it doesn’t continue to seem wrong, then you need to re-quadruple your efforts to reconcile yourself to it’s being correct, and if you STILL can’t reconcile yourself to that belief, then you have a fundamental choice.

It makes sense only if…

The Catholic Church is exclusively the Church of Jesus Christ, and it is impossible for the pope of the Catholic Church to be incorrect when speaking on a matter of faith and morals.

Other than that, you don’t know that “It can’t be wrong”.

So…

In order for what you and other Catholics here are proposing to make any sense at all…

At a mininum, you must be at level 5 (God said it, I believe it, that settles it) for the above statement in paragraph 2.

Other than being at this level on this one statement, you can not assume that “it can’t be wrong”.

That is nice.

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.

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”.

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.

 

[nebula]

Hi Nebula,
I will echo what others here have said. Yes, you do have to agree.

I think if you disagree with church teachings then you have to examine that and also examine why you want to be a Catholic if you disagree with fundamental Catholic teachings.



Remember there is also grace, and sometimes one doesn’t understand something but through grace it can be possible to change ones views. I would proceed if I was you, and after RCIA see how you feel. If you still totally disagree with certain teachings then I would be honest about that and talk to a Priest about it. See what he says.

I’m definitely planning on being very honest with everyone. I want my next move to be as open and genuine as possible now that I’ve moved on from MOrmonism.

I wonder if it makes any difference that I’ve already been baptized Catholic?

 

[joecap]

I will chime in here.

I am a cradle Catholic, and for a while I was what you would call a Cafeteria Catholic.
You have probably heard the term. It means picking and choosing what you want to believe.

When I really read the Catechism, and determined WHY the Catholic faith states things, I began to see they were correct. Take for example birth control.

I could not for the life of me understand why birth control would be a sin even if the couple was sterile. But then I realized that for God, there is are no gray areas. People could not try to “debate” Him, bringing up different scenarios. It is black or white, no confusion, no uncertainties. Only God can decide whether to open or close a womb.

I had it explained to me once like this:

Suppose you are a mathemetician. You have to agree to be bound by ALL the rules, or you cannot really come up with correct answers. You cannot disagree that 1 + 1 = 2.

 

[ralphinal]

I’m definitely planning on being very honest with everyone. I want my next move to be as open and genuine as possible now that I’ve moved on from MOrmonism.

I wonder if it makes any difference that I’ve already been baptized Catholic?

the RCIA process will not be that much different. You will not be re-baptised, but you will still need to be confirmed.

 

[Allnamesused]

That’s cute all, but I think any intelligent person recognizes that there is a difference between religious and spiritual claims to reality and the nitty gritty of how it plays out in the real world. It’s the latter I refer to.

This question really was meant for Catholics to answer, nto jokesters.

My comment was intended to be taken seriously. The pope does in fact own the catholic church.

 

[ralphinal]

My comment was intended to be taken seriously. The pope does in fact own the catholic church.

He does? I thought he was the care-taker until the owner returned…

I am confused

 

[Genesis315]

Christ owns the Church. The Pope is a servant of the owner.

 

[Allnamesused]

Hang on! Back the truck up a little bit.

I must have missed something HUGE!

When did the Pope purchase the Catholic Church? I thought he was just the leader of the Church?

How much did he pay? Last time I checked the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church and the Lord above is the only owner. We are merely followers.

Am I wrong about this?

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?