Is there a place for dissent in the Church?

[Chortle]

I personally believe that Jesus is embodied in the Church. As such, I choose to submit to Her dogmas, hierarchy, and teaching authority as from Jesus Himself.
Many fellow Catholics, however, do not agree with the teachings of the Church and feel it is necessary to voice their disagreements in order to bring about the reform they feel is necessary. I have been told that, in order for the Church to change, it has to change from the grass-roots level. If enough of the laity (and dissenting clergy) speak their mind, giving voice to their conscience, then the Church hierarchy will eventually hear the people and make the necessary changes.
Is there some truth to this? Could it actually be healthy to have voices that rock the boat by challenging Church authority? I know that this undercurrent of tension causes me to spend more time in prayer than maybe I would do otherwise.

 

[Maranatha]

Could it actually be healthy to have voices that rock the boat by challenging Church authority?

I can’t not question the way of God. He allows it. Remember out of evil he can bring greater good.

 

[estesbob]

I personally believe that Jesus is embodied in the Church. As such, I choose to submit to Her dogmas, hierarchy, and teaching authority as from Jesus Himself.
Many fellow Catholics, however, do not agree with the teachings of the Church and feel it is necessary to voice their disagreements in order to bring about the reform they feel is necessary. I have been told that, in order for the Church to change, it has to change from the grass-roots level. If enough of the laity (and dissenting clergy) speak their mind, giving voice to their conscience, then the Church hierarchy will eventually hear the people and make the necessary changes.
Is there some truth to this? Could it actually be healthy to have voices that rock the boat by challenging Church authority? I know that this undercurrent of tension causes me to spend more time in prayer than maybe I would do otherwise.

Depends on what changes you are talking about. The Church CAN NOT change its Doctrines. John Paul the Great made this clear when he stated he couldn’t approve female ordination even if he wanted to . Most of the dissent (in fact almost all) revolve around demands the Church change its teachings on the role of Women in the Church, abortion, contraception and homosexuality. None of those can(or will be changed) . Dissenting on these causes great and unnecessary conflict among the members of the Church

The solution is for people to learn the “why” of Church Doctrines and (hardest of all) let their Faith form their politics and not visa versa.

 

[Lrning]

I have been told that, in order for the Church to change, it has to change from the grass-roots level. If enough of the laity (and dissenting clergy) speak their mind, giving voice to their conscience, then the Church hierarchy will eventually hear the people and make the necessary changes.
Is there some truth to this?

I have heard of devotions starting with the laity. And perhaps this might work to promote some changes in Church disciplines. But I believe this will NEVER result in changes in doctrine or dogma. So I guess it depends which changes you’re talking about.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Persistent, activist dissent
from Church doctrine makes the dissenter
a pertinacious heretic and ipso facto cuts him off from
communion with the church, without any need for a declaration of excommunication.

We can ask for changes in disciplines (such as granting permission for priests to marry), but not doctrines.

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

One of my favorite shows on EWTN is “Journey Home”.

One of the repeated themes from guests who converted to Catholicism was their despair at watching whatever denomination they are from sail with the current political winds and embrace political correctness and feminisms. They often cite relief at the Catholic Church’s more consistent teaching, and this is the quality that leads people serious about faith to the Church.

The equation is fairly simple: either the Gospels are true and the work of God (through human writers) or they are not. Either Jesus is the Son of God or he is not.

If he IS the Son of God (and I firmly believe he is), then the Bible cannot be wrong. Therefore, the Church he established cannot be wrong. Therefore, God’s word doesn’t have to be altered to fit modern trends, fads and sensibilities.

God’s word is ETERNAL. That’s why the Catholic Church is the most likely and logical place for that word to exist; the sheer fact of the Church’s consistency over the millenia put it in stark contrast to the ever-changing views and the multiplicity of Protestant sects each seeking to create Christianity in their own fashion.

 

[Liberian]

Chortle,

There is some truth to the idea that if the Church is to change, it has to come up from the grassroots, but it is not completely true. Another way for the Church to change is for God to dictate something. But a groundswell of the faithful is certainly one way for the Church to change. For example, when Pius IX declared the Immaculate Conception to be infallible dogma, he was only confirming what pretty much all the faithful believed already. And when John Paul II established the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter to say the Latin Mass, he was responding to voices of the faithful.

A danger in this view, though, is the idea that the faithful can continue to raise their voices even when the Magisterium has settled the issue. The question of women as priests comes to mind here. What the Church has settled should be settled.

There is a difference between calling for change in the Church and challenging Church authority. I don’t think challenging Church authority is ever healthy. God may bring good out of it, such as your increased time in prayer, but by itself it is not good.

• Liberian

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Concerning women in the priesthood

There is nothing in the Gospel to deny such a role, indeed Our Lord commissioned the Samaritan woman to go and preach to her people.

There is now a traditional aversion to reverencing the feminine aspects of G_d.
The Jews had no such problem in the beginning, and Kabalists consider the Shekinah, or Holy Spirit to be feminine, indeed Early Christians also considered the Holy Spirit to be feminine, as Sancta Sophia - definitely feminine in Latin.
Yes the Father and the Son are definitely masculine.
I can understand the problem that some might have in seeing a woman acting out a male role, but in ancient times, it was common for actors, (males only), to take female roles, so cross-dressing was not the problem.
It seems that the objection is on the basis of MCPs objecting to women taking authoritative roles. Whether Paul was an MCP, or was pandering to MCPs is open to question.
Certainly the mores of the time imputed priestesses to be prostitutes, but that was then in ancient Rome, with her peculiar gods and godesses. It is no longer relevant, indeed Our Lord did not see such a relevance.
He sent out women to teach, especially where men could not go, such as into the harems of the palaces.
There have always been places where men cannot go, and likewise where women cannot go.
We can accept sending women to teach women, why cannot we go the small step further, and allow a woman to represent a man?
Condi Rice seems quite able to represent GWB, in fact she seems to do it better than he.

 

[mlchance]

Regarding the thread’s title question, yes, there is a place for dissent in the Church. When the Church’s leadership strays from the truth of Scripture and Tradition, dissent is not only permissible but advisable.

There is nothing in the Gospel to deny such a role, indeed Our Lord commissioned the Samaritan woman to go and preach to her people.

No, he didn’t. When the disciples returned, the woman ran off and told people. Jesus did not ask her to do this, let alone commission her to go preach.

The Jews had no such problem in the beginning, and Kabalists consider the Shekinah, or Holy Spirit to be feminine, indeed Early Christians also considered the Holy Spirit to be feminine, as Sancta Sophia - definitely feminine in Latin.

How many Jewish priests were women? Some ancient sources personify God’s wisdom as a woman. This is a far cry from saying the Holy Spirit, which is always spoken of using masculine pronouns in the New Testament, is feminine. Also, the Latin for Holy Spirit is Spiritus Sanctus. What’s more, a Latin word’s gender is necessarily indicative of the objects gender. Latin for door is porta, but last time I checked the doors in my house were neither male nor female.

I can understand the problem that some might have in seeing a woman acting out a male role, but in ancient times, it was common for actors, (males only), to take female roles, so cross-dressing was not the problem.

From here on your examples seeking to justify that which the Church has authoritatively said cannot happen are either just silly or beside the point.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Regarding the thread’s title question, yes, there is a place for dissent in the Church. When the Church’s leadership strays from the truth of Scripture and Tradition, dissent is not only permissible but advisable.

No, he didn’t. When the disciples returned, the woman ran off and told people. Jesus did not ask her to do this, let alone commission her to go preach.

I accept your point, but please accept mine:
Our Lord picked on her, and instructed her in great detail in highly technical points of His theology.
Though there is no record of Him sending her out to preach, the intent is clearly implicit in the depth of instruction which He gave to her.
It could be seen though that in instructing her to summon her husband, he was sending her as fore-runner to summon the crowd.

How many Jewish priests were women? Some ancient sources personify God’s wisdom as a woman. This is a far cry from saying the Holy Spirit, which is always spoken of using masculine pronouns in the New Testament, is feminine. Also, the Latin for Holy Spirit is Spiritus Sanctus. What’s more, a Latin word’s gender is

did you here omit “not”?

necessarily indicative of the objects gender. Latin for door is porta, but last time I checked the doors in my house were neither male nor female.

Without being too technical, that which is sent forth is often classified as male, and an opening, whether mouth or door, which receives that sent, as female, as is ecclesia, or church.
It is clearly a mistake to take this classification too seriously.
Certainly it is an error to take it literally.

From here on your examples seeking to justify that which the Church has authoritatively said cannot happen are either just silly or beside the point.

– Mark L. Chance.

The church’s decision on this point is based entirely on unsupported tradition.
There is no support in the Gospel, and dubious support from Paul, who is clearly on this subject either an MCP or is pandering thereto.
Thus this is a tradition of men, and not derived from any teaching of Our Lord.

 

[Deconi]

Throughout Her history, there has always been dissent of some degree in The Church! The Catechism allows for the laity to voice their ‘dissentions’ if Her ‘leaders’ begin to, or outright, stray from Her mission. (I think it’s Canon 202 Pt.2 ?) Sorry, can’t look it up at the moment…but I can find it if required.

There are 3-singposts which must remain allinged so that ALL THE FAITHFUL (child to Pope) can ‘see things’ for themselves.

1. Magisterium
2. Holy Scriptures
3. Sacred Tradition

**The Magisterium and Sacred Tradition, ARE EQUAL TO SCRIPTURES in all respects!! Many Catholics may not know this, and countless Reformers cite it as a fault against The Catholic Church, claiming that “Catholics think their church is equal to Scriptures!” **

The “arguers” remain ignorant that The Church (Magisterium) CAME FIRST, before the Canon of Scriptures was decided (By Her) some 400years after Pentecost. The Church was the only ‘vessel’ of Truth up to that point, because there were several HUNDREDS of “scriptures / letters / gospels” being bandied about.

Scared Tradition ALSO BEGAN FIRST, when The Church began, and remain THE PHYSICAL, TANGIBLE Golden Thread, that leads back to Her FOUNDER.

Holy Scriptures is The Word of God. The SAME God who instituted and established His Church; The SAME God who tells us in Scriptures (His Eternal Word) that He sends His Third Personage (Holy Spirit ) to GUIDE His Church, which is why “the gates of Hell cannot overcome it.”

As far as dissenting goes, the Pope, or anyone else in Catholicism for that matter, is able to appeal to the “signposts” above, to reach a decision on whatever the dissent issue is!

**This is what John Paul did to reach his conclusion of negating women priests because he stated that all appeal to Scared Tradition and Holy Scriptures gave The Church NO AUTHORITY to allow it.!!! **

You see? He could have changed the Magisterium, as a reigning Pope. But the other two signposts showed him otherwise.

This is also why the Reformers in all their varied denominations continue to shatter and wander further and further away, like sailors losing sight of their markers in the stars! Because they departed from the allignment of the 3-Signposts.

But like all Divine gifts, those ‘posts’ are always here and waiting to guide.

 

[mlchance]

I accept your point, but please accept mine:

Why, when your point is based on mere supposition that goes beyond the plain meaning of the text? Still, even if I accept your point, it doesn’t prove your case. Women are not prohibited from evangelizing others. They are prohibited from receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

did you here omit “not”?

Yes, I did. Mea culpa.

Without being too technical, that which is sent forth is often classified as male, and an opening, whether mouth or door, which receives that sent, as female, as is ecclesia, or church.

Admittedly, which does nothing to support your contention that the improper Latin term for Holy Spirit indicates the Holy Spirit isn’t masculine.

The church’s decision on this point is based entirely on unsupported tradition.

Again, at this point in time, you enter the realm of pure fancy. For the better part of 2000 years, almost all Christians have clearly seen that it isn’t permissible to ordain women based on the examples of Scripture and Tradition. What’s more, given the fact the Church has been given the authority to decide such matters, your vague protestations to the contrary hold water like a sieve.

IOW, if you seriously expect to refute the Church’s doctrinal stance on ordaining women, you’ll have to do a whole lot better than adding your own details to the Gospels while at the same time merely saying the Church is wrong because you say so.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Again, at this point in time, you enter the realm of pure fancy. For the better part of 2000 years, almost all Christians have clearly seen that it isn’t permissible to ordain women based on the examples of Scripture and Tradition. What’s more, given the fact the Church has been given the authority to decide such matters, your vague protestations to the contrary hold water like a sieve.

IOW, if you seriously expect to refute the Church’s doctrinal stance on ordaining women, you’ll have to do a whole lot better than adding your own details to the Gospels while at the same time merely saying the Church is wrong because you say so.

– Mark L. Chance.

I think, if you scrape deeply enough, you will find that Mother Church is not as absolutely set as you believe, for in cases of extremis, anyone can hear a confession, or administer extreme unction, man, woman, adult or child.
We are not dealing here with absolute prohibition, but rather with an extreme preference.
When and if the time is right, then things will change.

 

[Saint_Gemma]

for in cases of extremis, anyone can hear a confession, or administer extreme unction, man, woman, adult or child.

Do you have a citation for that? If so, please post it.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Do you have a citation for that? If so, please post it.

No, it is something I heard long ago.
I had no cause to doubt it.
Let us search this point…
Let’s go google!

 

[PoliSciProf]

Most of the responses to this thread assume dissent means dissent from dogma. I don’t dissent from dogma though there is much that I am still working to understand, There is a place to dissent and that deals with the management of the Church, the statements of its bishops on public policy (for instance the various statements of bishops on matters of nuclear weapons, diplomacy, etc.) Canon law actually requires something like dissent (perhaps (name removed by moderator)ut or criticism is better). (THE LAITY) Can. 212 §3 They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals. To cite just one example, my past bishop banned participation in CROP Walks (ecumenical activities re hunger) while the current bishop has reversed this stand. I spoke out against the former. This is a dissent. And, of course, the sentiments of the laity needs to be expressed to the hierachy. The Latin Mass issue here is a case in point. By the way, I have expressed respectfully my considered opinions in my area of expertise to my bishops. Sadly, I have never even recieved a “Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut” form letter for my efforts. I think that if canon law permits or even requires me to speak out in my area of special knowledge, then bishops should respond. Please note: I am not saying “agree with me” but acknowledge my communication with a similiar respect.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

No, it is something I heard long ago.
I had no cause to doubt it.
Let us search this point…
Let’s go google!

Or the Canons of the Church:

CANON LAW
TITLE V.
THE SACRAMENT OF THE ANOINTING OF THE SICK (1003)
CHAPTER II.

THE MINISTER OF THE ANOINTING OF THE SICK

Can. 1003 §1. Every priest and a priest alone validly administers the anointing of the sick.

Amazing what one hears about the Church, compared to what actually is in the Church.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Do you have a citation for that? If so, please post it.

Try this:
newadvent.org/cathen/05716a.htm
Reading from:

V. MINISTER

(1) The Council of Trent has defined in accordance with the words of St. James that the proper ministers (proprios ministros) of this sacrament are the priests of the Church alone, that is bishops or priests ordained by them (Sess. XIV, cap. iii, and can. iv, De Extr. Unct.). And this has been the constant teaching of tradition, as is clear from the testimonies given above. Yet Launoi (Opp., I, 569 sq.) has maintained that deacons can be validly delegated by the bishop to administer extreme unction, appealing in support of his view to certain cases in which they were authorized in the absence of a priest to reconcile dying penitents and give them the Viaticum. But in none of these cases is extreme unction once mentioned or referred to, and one may not gratuitously assume that the permission given extended to this sacrament, all the more so as there is not a particle of evidence from any other source to support the assumption. **The Carmelite Thomas Waldensis (d. 1430) inferred from the passage of Innocent I [see above, under III (C), (2), (b)] that, in case of necessity when no priest could be got, a layman or woman might validly anoint **(Doctrinale Antiq. Fidei, II, clxiii, 3), and quite recently Boudinhon (Revue Cath. des Eglises, July, 1905, p. 401 sq.) has defended the same view and improved upon it by allowing the sick person to administer the sacrament to himself or herself. This opinion, however, seems to be clearly excluded by the definition of the Council of Trent that the priest alone is the “proper” minister of extreme unction. The word proper cannot be taken as equivalent merely to ordinary, and can only mean “Divinely authorized”. And as to the unction of themselves or others by lay persons with the consecrated oil, it is clear that Pope Innocent, while sanctioning the pious practice, could not have supposed it to be efficacious in the same way as the unction by a priest or bishop, to whom alone in his view the administration of the Jacobean rite belonged. This lay unction was merely what we call today a sacramental. Clericatus (Decisiones de Extr. Unct., decis. lxxv) has held that a sick priest in case of necessity can validly administer extreme unction to himself; but he has no argument of any weight to offer for this opinion, which is opposed to all sacramental analogy (outside the case of the Eucharist) and to a decision of the Congregation of Propaganda issued 23 March, 1844. These several singular opinions are rejected with practical unanimity by theologians, and the doctrine is maintained that the priests of the Church, and they alone, can validly confer extreme unction.

I see that this text gives two conflicting conclusions, but the essence depends on how ‘emergency’ is interpreted.
The phrase which I have rmboldened seems to favour charity, wheras the contrary case seems to emphasise legality.
Personally I am inclined to favour charity.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I personally believe that Jesus is embodied in the Church. As such, I choose to submit to Her dogmas, hierarchy, and teaching authority as from Jesus Himself.
Many fellow Catholics, however, do not agree with the teachings of the Church and feel it is necessary to voice their disagreements in order to bring about the reform they feel is necessary. I have been told that, in order for the Church to change, it has to change from the grass-roots level. If enough of the laity (and dissenting clergy) speak their mind, giving voice to their conscience, then the Church hierarchy will eventually hear the people and make the necessary changes.
Is there some truth to this? Could it actually be healthy to have voices that rock the boat by challenging Church authority? I know that this undercurrent of tension causes me to spend more time in prayer than maybe I would do otherwise.

I think you are quite right here. Any reading of church history says as much. There has always been dissent of one sort or another since its inception. Some of it has been and remains heretical. Other things have been incorporated into the Church’s “fuller understanding” of truth.

The second Vatican council was a push and pull between conservatives and progressives. The Conservatives thought they had control of the agenda, but the Holy Spirit apparently had other ideas and what became known as progressive ideas became the norm.

Today we have Conservatives attempting to pull the Church back to I assume a pre-Vatican II position. They would have a good deal of post Vatican II declared heretical I assume.

In truth, the Church I contend requires both sides. It is I believe the main reason for here extraordinary staying power through a rapidly changing world.

The Vatican II movement seems to be the result of the Church recognizing it could not function totally outside the world. The attempts today by ultra conservatives to take us out again seem counter productive to me, but I would not suggest they don’t have a right to speak their views. And they provide I would suggest a necessary brake to the system.

Over emphasis on Magisterium and What does the church say I can think, are dangerous not only to the Church but to the individual. We are all the Body of Christ, and we must of necessity play our active part in guiding the Church. We must and should give respect always to the words of popes and councils, but we must not relinquish our rersponsibilities as thinking rational beings in the process. For goodness sake, nobody would have followed Jesus had they not been willing to think outside the box and realize His way was best. They were all heretics as far as the Sanhedrin was concerned.

 

[mlchance]

V. MINISTER

(1) The Council of Trent has defined in accordance with the words of St. James that the proper ministers (proprios ministros) of this sacrament are the priests of the Church alone, that is bishops or priests ordained by them (Sess. XIV, cap. iii, and can. iv, De Extr. Unct.). And this has been the constant teaching of tradition, as is clear from the testimonies given above. Yet Launoi (Opp., I, 569 sq.) has maintained that deacons can be validly delegated by the bishop to administer extreme unction, appealing in support of his view to certain cases in which they were authorized in the absence of a priest to reconcile dying penitents and give them the Viaticum. But in none of these cases is extreme unction once mentioned or referred to, and one may not gratuitously assume that the permission given extended to this sacrament, all the more so as there is not a particle of evidence from any other source to support the assumption. The Carmelite Thomas Waldensis (d. 1430) inferred from the passage of Innocent I [see above, under III (C), (2), (b)] that, in case of necessity when no priest could be got, a layman or woman might validly anoint (Doctrinale Antiq. Fidei, II, clxiii, 3), and quite recently Boudinhon (Revue Cath. des Eglises, July, 1905, p. 401 sq.) has defended the same view and improved upon it by allowing the sick person to administer the sacrament to himself or herself. This opinion, however, seems to be clearly excluded by the definition of the Council of Trent that the priest alone is the “proper” minister of extreme unction. The word proper cannot be taken as equivalent merely to ordinary, and can only mean “Divinely authorized”. And as to the unction of themselves or others by lay persons with the consecrated oil, it is clear that Pope Innocent, while sanctioning the pious practice, could not have supposed it to be efficacious in the same way as the unction by a priest or bishop, to whom alone in his view the administration of the Jacobean rite belonged. This lay unction was merely what we call today a sacramental. Clericatus (Decisiones de Extr. Unct., decis. lxxv) has held that a sick priest in case of necessity can validly administer extreme unction to himself; but he has no argument of any weight to offer for this opinion, which is opposed to all sacramental analogy (outside the case of the Eucharist) and to a decision of the Congregation of Propaganda issued 23 March, 1844. These several singular opinions are rejected with practical unanimity by theologians, and the doctrine is maintained that the priests of the Church, and they alone, can validly confer extreme unction.

I see that this text gives two conflicting conclusions, but the essence depends on how ‘emergency’ is interpreted.

No, the essence depends on the how the Church decides the matter. It’s funny (but not “funny ha ha”) that your source’s conclusion doesn’t prove your point, and yet you insist on appealing to the source.

– Mark L. Chance.