Is there a place for dissent in the Church?

[Mannyfit75]

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.

No there shouldn’t be. Unfortunately there is. In the Early Church, bishops reminds the faith to be obedient to the bishop and the Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch write in 107-110 AD.

The following:

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop.

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Chapter 9. Honour the bishop.

Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop.** He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil**.** Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.**

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

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.

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.

Dear Mark,
I posted this excerpt to show a possible source for the idea which I had picked up in a time before memory. (I re-emboldenned the relevant section.)
It shows that the idea was not a fermentation of mistaken ideas, but was in fact based upon the conclusions of wise Catholic men.
It seems that in spite of the conclusion of the paragraph, the judgement is still in some places, a matter of opinion. Note the wording: “practical unanimity”. That plainly implies that contrary opinions were present, even if in a tiny minority.
I believe that how people respond in cases of necessity are not subject to the judgement of the Magesterium, but of G_d alone.
This could indeed be what was implied by the strange opinions.
Necessity can change anything.
Necessity is the finger of G_d.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Dear Mark,
I posted this excerpt to show a possible source for the idea which I had picked up in a time before memory. (I re-emboldenned the relevant section.)
It shows that the idea was not a fermentation of mistaken ideas, but was in fact based upon the conclusions of wise Catholic men.
It seems that in spite of the conclusion of the paragraph, the judgement is still in some places, a matter of opinion. Note the wording: “practical unanimity”. That plainly implies that contrary opinions were present, even if in a tiny minority.
I believe that how people respond in cases of necessity are not subject to the judgement of the Magesterium, but of G_d alone.
This could indeed be what was implied by the strange opinions.
Necessity can change anything.
Necessity is the finger of G_d.

Contrary opinions are fine, UNTIL the Magisterium of the Church makes a pronouncement. At one time Arius had the “contrary opinion” that there was a time when Christ was not. And, he had a lot of people who agreed. The Magisterium, on consideration, decided otherwise. And at that point, anyone who did not submit to the teaching of the Magisterium became a heretic.

More recently, there was a wide body of opinion that the teachings of the Church on birth control should be reconsidered. Pope Paul VI reaffirmed them, and at that point, the opinion became irrelevant.

And the last part of the post is, in Catholic thought, a mixture of situation ethics and fatalism. Necessity can never be an imperative to moreal evil, and the existence of necessity never makes evil good. The end never justifies the means, either.

Necessity can often be just the mess our own bad choices have gotten us into, and no blame for it can be assigned to God. However, even in those situations, God can work with those who submit their will to his will.

There are many things that are open to a number of opinions in the Church, but de fide teachings in faith and morals are not among them. That’s part of what it means to be a Catholic. To try and behave otherwise, and consider one’s self Catholic, is an incredible exercise in self-deception.

One final thought. The whole “between the person and God” thing is Protestant thought, not Catholic thought. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and she has binding and loosing authority. The Church has a say in the degree to which a person is, in fact, in communion with her. No one can come to the Church and say, “God has told me I’m still a Catholic” and bind the Church to accept it.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Deconi]

Contrary opinions are fine, UNTIL the Magisterium of the Church makes a pronouncement. At one time Arius had the “contrary opinion” that there was a time when Christ was not. And, he had a lot of people who agreed. The Magisterium, on consideration, decided otherwise. And at that point, anyone who did not submit to the teaching of the Magisterium became a heretic.

More recently, there was a wide body of opinion that the teachings of the Church on birth control should be reconsidered. Pope Paul VI reaffirmed them, and at that point, the opinion became irrelevant.

And the last part of the post is, in Catholic thought, a mixture of situation ethics and fatalism. Necessity can never be an imperative to moreal evil, and the existence of necessity never makes evil good. The end never justifies the means, either.

Necessity can often be just the mess our own bad choices have gotten us into, and no blame for it can be assigned to God. However, even in those situations, God can work with those who submit their will to his will.

There are many things that are open to a number of opinions in the Church, but de fide teachings in faith and morals are not among them. That’s part of what it means to be a Catholic. To try and behave otherwise, and consider one’s self Catholic, is an incredible exercise in self-deception.

One final thought. The whole “between the person and God” thing is Protestant thought, not Catholic thought. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and she has binding and loosing authority. The Church has a say in the degree to which a person is, in fact, in communion with her. No one can come to the Church and say, “God has told me I’m still a Catholic” and bind the Church to accept it.

Blessings,

Gerry

Nice Gerry, and I fully concur. There are almost countless papers and scholastic essays that have built ‘cases’ upon the fact that there are recorded differences of opinions during every Canonical Council of The Church, like Trent and Vatican 1. These essays then proceed as though the weight of legitimacy is shifted to their views since there is subjective support (where the different opinon is not known during council discussions) or real support (where records reveal the argument)

What they totally ignore is that once a Council reaches a decision, the matter / issue is settled. It matters not what the opinion poll count is during the discussion phases! This is why St Paul says, if you cannot settle a matter, take it to The Church. From that, clearly, The Church will make a decision that will either satisfy only one party, OR NEITHER. But when the decision is made, BOTH ARE TO ACCEPT IT. Not harbour or voice a contrary view to accepted dogma or doctrine and laud that contrary view as legitimate, citing the existence of ‘defeated arguments’ during previous councils as support or basis.

We are all free to discuss and argue about EVERYTHING! But some have been settled for us so we do not waste time on them. There are countless that have not been settled difinitively, or at least, no official declaration stated by The Church. Some of these merit “our collective thoughts” in discussion, and some are immaterial.

The argument that God is the final Adjudicator on any issue, when The Church decides against one’s opinions or views is incredible to me, when it comes from Catholics. Whilst God’s Will remain hidden from us, He Himself is not. WHO is guiding The Church? “The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.” WHO is HE?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Contrary opinions are fine, UNTIL the Magisterium of the Church makes a pronouncement. At one time Arius had the “contrary opinion” that there was a time when Christ was not. And, he had a lot of people who agreed.

In a real sense Arius was right.
There was a time when Christ, that is, the Anointed Human son of David, was not, but there never was a time when Verbum Dei was not.
In confusing Heavenly and Earthly aspects, he wandered into error.

The Magisterium, on consideration, decided otherwise. And at that point, anyone who did not submit to the teaching of the Magisterium became a heretic.

More recently, there was a wide body of opinion that the teachings of the Church on birth control should be reconsidered. Pope Paul VI reaffirmed them, and at that point, the opinion became irrelevant.

And the last part of the post is, in Catholic thought, a mixture of situation ethics and fatalism. Necessity can never be an imperative to **moral (typo here, Have I read it right?)**evil, and the existence of necessity never makes evil good. The end never justifies the means, either.

Necessity can often be just the mess our own bad choices have gotten us into, and no blame for it can be assigned to God. However, even in those situations, God can work with those who submit their will to his will.

There are many things that are open to a number of opinions in the Church, but de fide teachings in faith and morals are not among them. That’s part of what it means to be a Catholic. To try and behave otherwise, and consider one’s self Catholic, is an incredible exercise in self-deception.

I am not questioning matters of faith and morals here, only tradition, and then only unsupported tradition.
There is definite evidence that Our Lord sent female envoys into closed communities. The mentions are scrubbed lightly around, but the fact that there are mentions at-all is highly significant.
Think of Chuza in the Royal Household.

One final thought. The whole “between the person and God” thing is Protestant thought, not Catholic thought.

So Jeanne d’Arc was a protestant?

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and she has binding and loosing authority. The Church has a say in the degree to which a person is, in fact, in communion with her. No one can come to the Church and say, “God has told me I’m still a Catholic” and bind the Church to accept it.

Blessings,

Gerry

High Gerry,
I do not dream to claim that private revelations should bind the Church, but I do assert that the Church must accept private revelation as a possibility, indeed, I do believe She does.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

The truth of the faith is not a contest of ideas. Virtually every point trying to be made in favour of “dissent” – here and elsewhere – is predicated on the notion that it is. That’s why there were so many academics with their noses out of joint after Vatican II. They thought, somehow, though certainly not from reading the Council documents – that things would now be decided in seminar rooms, or by something akin to peer review. They were quite wrong, and upset because their PhD’s weren’t considered the equivalent of being ordained Bishops of the Church.

On issues of faith and morals, on which the Magisterium has made pronouncements, “dissent” is nothing more than a euphemism for “heresy,” self-chosen by those who wish to indulge in it. It’s not that these heretics are bad thinkers. They are simply undisciplined.

Blessings,

Gerry

PS: Joan of Arc’s call had nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the Deposit of the Faith. Likewise, no private revelation can change the Deposit of the Faith.
Neither can a symposium of theologians.

 

[mlchance]

Note the wording: “practical unanimity”. That plainly implies that contrary opinions were present, even if in a tiny minority.

And note these words, which settle the matter authoritatively: “…the doctrine is maintained that the priests of the Church, and they alone, can validly confer extreme unction.”

See the pattern? You make a claim, such as a layperson can administer the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick. You then cite what appears to be evidence, but really is actually evidence for the contrary position. Next, you attempt to divert attention away from the plain fact that your claim was wrong toward the irrelevant fact that some people dissent from doctrine.

IOW, it appears to be that the real problem here is a refusal to submit to the Church’s just authority. There can be no legitimate dissent from just authorty.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Peregrino]

IOW, it appears to be that the real problem here is a refusal to submit to the Church’s just authority. There can be no legitimate dissent from just authorty.

– Mark L. Chance.

The question remains; is it “just” authority or just authority???

 

[Peregrino]

On issues of faith and morals, on which the Magisterium has made pronouncements, “dissent” is nothing more than a euphemism for “heresy,” self-chosen by those who wish to indulge in it. It’s not that these heretics are bad thinkers. They are simply undisciplined.

They apparently must be broken on the rack of “magesterial” “truth”…lol