Question about doctrine and dissent and VII

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lucky7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lucky7

Guest
I have serious questions about doctrine and dissent and I would like to get it clarified once and for all. I always thought that dissent was not allowed…full stop. However, I would love to hear from folks that are much more knowledgeable than I am.

(1) Not all doctrine is infallible:

I am hearing that some doctrine is not infallable because there is the room for further revelation. An example given was teaching on unbaptized babies and Limbo.

(2) Catholics can debate and dissent:

Apparently dissent was allowed via Vatican II. One part is referenced where it says something to the effect of “some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies,”. One can dissent those “who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.”

(3) Dogma is the exception: Dogma is the only thing that must be given full assent.

Please advise with support.
 
Why dissent to anything taught by the Church? Why do we have to embrace dogma but not doctrine, or not particular doctrines?

Why struggle like that? Why not embrace it all?

Then the boy’s father cried out, “I do believe, help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24)

I give the entire Catholic faith my assent and ask Jesus for help believing that which is difficult to understand. The boy’s father is one of my heros. If I knew his name I would have chosen him for my confirmation name.

-Tim-
 
We ought not look for loopholes. 😉

There is no “further revelation”. Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Doctrine develops, but it does not change.

For those who claim that Vatican II opens the door to dissent, I would challenge them to give an exact citation from the Council documents for such a thing. It simply doesn’t exist.

I would encourage you to read through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei. (It would also be helpful to read the Professio Fidei itself, as well as John Paul II’s Ad Tuendam Fidem which precede the Commentary on that page.)

This document does a good job of spelling out the distinctions between various “levels” of Church teaching. The bottom line, though, is that we Catholics accept it all.

Many theologians take their pet issue from which they dissent and they like to do theological gymnastics to try to cram the teaching into one of the “lower levels” that they can thus disregard. I find that approach to be somewhat disingenuous. First, half the time they are incorrect to plcae the teaching into a “lower level”. And second, even if it is in a “lower level”, that does not mean it is open for debate, incorrect, or that it is okay to disregard.

Read the document for yourself.
 
Oh dear, I am still confused. Where do the doctrines regarding the controversial issues fall with respect what kind of doctrine/teaching in all of that?

You know the familiar issues: female ordination, gay marriage/homosexuality, artificial birth control, abortion
 
Lucky7 said:
Oh dear, I am still confused. Where do the doctrines regarding the controversial issues fall with respect what kind of doctrine/teaching in all of that?

You know the familiar issues: female ordination, gay marriage/homosexuality, artificial birth control, abortion
Click to expand...
fo: probably infallibly defined via ordinary magisterium that it is impossible (ordinatio sacerdotalis)

gay “marriage”: natural law, infallible in itself, really

abc: ^

babyslaughter: ^

I am not a theologian, so others, please feel free to comment on my post.
 
Lucky7 said:
Oh dear, I am still confused. Where do the doctrines regarding the controversial issues fall with respect what kind of doctrine/teaching in all of that?

You know the familiar issues: female ordination, gay marriage/homosexuality, artificial birth control, abortion
Click to expand...
I too am confused. Nothing is controversial until we decide it is controversial, or until we make the concious decision not to agree with it.

Belief isn’t something that happens to us from the outside. Belief is something we choose. Belief is something we possess after we make a concious decision to accept, after we give our assent. We then ask God for help in accepting that which is difficult to understand.

Truth is only controversial to those who fail to accept it. We are members of the Church of the Truth. We have only to accept it.

-Tim-
 
Perhaps this will help:

In ansewr to, “Is the catechism magisterial? Infallible?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7563724
JReducation said:
That’s a technical question. The CCC contains infallible dogmas and moral laws. It also contains canon laws and disciplines that are not infallible, but must be observed by every Catholic, because the Church has the authority to command assent of the faithful.

The answer to the OP is affirmative. The CCC is a Megisterial Document that containes infallible doctrines and morals, as well as canons and other disciplinary laws that are binding on all Catholics. No part of the Catechism is up to debate. As Pope Benedict has said, the more you dissent with the Catechism the further you get from communion with the Church. That’s a thought worth pondering.

That being said, one should read the CCC with the comentary. It’s very helpful, because it points you to previous catechism, documents and other writings that are behind the statements in the CCC. It also explains why something has been added to a previous statement. Ignatius Press puts out a very good commentary.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7552273
JReducation said:
Once the Sacred Congregation for the Faith and the Pope jointly declare that the Catechism contains what every Catholic should believe, then there is no argument. In any case, neither the pope nor the Sacred Congregation will entertain any argument.

There have been questions asked of the Sacred Congregation on certain points in the Catechism, because the wording is awkward or does not translate well. They have been very gracious in explaining and even went as far as issuing a second education to try and make it clearer.

However, what the Holy Father [Pope BXVI] is saying and has said all along, when he was the Prefect and after he became pope, is that Catholics must assent to everything that is in the catechism.

The more you dissent the closer you get to being out of communion with the Church. If you reach a point where you reject the whole thing, then you’ve just thought yourself right out of the Catholic Church.

This is where dissent is dangerous, because as human beings we tend to think “one more thing” and “one more thing” and “one more thing” and before you know it, the whole thing is out the window.

To be on the safe side, you take the entire thing at face value and you trust that the Congregation for the Faith and the Pope who promulgated the Cathechism know what they’re talking about , better than we do.

I for one and not going to pit my pea size brain against Joseph Ratzinger. :eek:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
What in Church teaching is infallible and must be believed and what is not?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6088602#post6088602
Lutheranteach said:
Where do such things leave the Catholics (and I know quite a few) who are in line with 90% of the Church’s teachings but cannot and will not accept the church’s position on some seemingly vital things such as: Papal authority, abortion position, contraception, the assumption, the perpetual virginity of Mary or her immaculate conception, or the ordination of women. Are they to stay and be in disagreement (which these individuals have not budged from in 10, 20, 30, or even 50 years) or should they leave the church?
Click to expand...
JReducation said:
They have already left the Church. Such a person is no longer in communion with the Catholic Church. Therefore, should not approach the altar for communion. They may still be physically present, but they no longer belong to the Church. They have what is known as an imperfect communion with the Church.

An imperfect communion with the Church is when one posesses and subscribes to some of the truths of the faith, but not to all. This is the case of the Reformation communities. In the case of the Reformation communities, they are not heretics, because this is what they inherited from their forefathers. In the case of a Catholic, he or she is a heretic, because these were not the beliefs that they inherited. These are their own beliefs that they want to impose on the Church or beliefs that they choose to deny.

We must pray for people of any faith who deny the truths that they have come to know.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top