Reality Check: Are you an obedient Catholic, or an unfaithful heterodox?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FiremanFrank
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
FiremanFrank:
And quite unfortuneately, and until I die …

I must live in yours.
Plenty of room for both of us

Just make sure all your stuff is on your side of the room 😉

(Hmmmm. notice I was nice and didn’t go for the obvious “die” joke…I must be getting soft in my old age. Humor is tough early in the morning) 😉
40.png
FiremanFrank:
Guess we’ll put you down for a “NO” then.😉
I refused to answer the question on the grounds that options are terrible. It is a false dilemma situation

This all or nothing, put up or shut up dichotomy is alien to me.

If the struggling, questioning, and poor in spirit are not welcome then you’re not talking about the Catholic Church that I know.
 
Steve Andersen:
If the struggling, questioning, and poor in spirit are not welcome then you’re not talking about the Catholic Church that I know.
God alone judges…All we can do is say “yes, it is my INTENTION to do God’s will–even at the sacrifice of my own.” Or we can say, “No, I know what God says, and I think I know better–after-all, he made me this way…”

I don’t think those that struggle, question, etc…are by definition less orthodox. It all depends on what motivates them–is it self-serving, or is it God-serving? Only the individual and God know (and God knows better!). INTENTION is everything…and I think many of those who may appear heterodox are simply struggling Christians–that is their cross to bear–and it is a blessing as long as the search for truth continues rather than slipping into lukewarmness…or obstinance…
 
40.png
st_felicity:
Well…my sin is personal…but what I mean is that in the past I have done things against Church teaching, such as I used birth control pills early in my marriage. I’m sure there was some diminished culpability due to my lack of full understanding of Church teaching…but I knew the Church said it was wrong and I used it anyway. And even today, on occasion, I have sinned by rationalizing skipping mass because I “didn’t feel well” when in fact I didn’t feel all that bad–maybe not 100% but no where near incapacitated. That’s sin and disobedient to Church teaching.

Ultimately I need to be obediant to GOD ALONE. But God gave us the Church to guide us–like a mother. And so, in being obedient to Church teaching, I am being obedient to God.
Peace to you Edwin.
Hi st_felicity,
To me you are beating your self unnecessarily.
See where I have underlined two sections. Obedient to God. This is accomplished by following God, the Holy Spirit. If you follow Him you can not sin. When have you disobeyed yourself is the question. Well for you, when you have not obeyed all the different rules of your demonination. For me, when I have not obeyed my conscience- to start with- and as I grow in awareness of the spirit, when I dont act in accordance to the spirit.
In your own words, Church to guide, as the church holds the fundamental truth for us, but the church can not tell us day by day where and how and what to do. The demoninational church is like the bible, except we dont have to search for the correct passage, we can fast track the process and ask a minister. But Christ wants us to obey Him because He has work for us to do. If the work is outside the guidelines of the denominational church we should be very careful.
You could free yourself of so much sin by not believing in all the rules because it is those rules which convict you. Listen to the Spirit of God and hear what He says. Let the Holy Spirit convict you , not some rules. As Paul says I think in Romans, the rules or law is not bad, but in Christ the laws are fullfilled. Follow Him for in Him all rules and laws are obeyed, There is no sin then.
walk in love
edwinG
 
I am obedient to God. I do not agree with everything the Church teaches. I do not know anyone who is perfectly obedient enough to checkmark the absolute obedience to the Church box at the beginning of this thread. I think if we talked long enough the truth would come out.

feather
 
I strive to follow, and being human, stumble. I believe 100% in the teachings of the Church, because I have 100% faith in it. When, I do stumble, I am blessed to have the sacrament of reconcilliation available.

We can have 100% belief in the Church’s teachings, and still have questions. And when we have those questions, we have recourse; the Church. But we have to accept the decision of the Church regarding these questions. Else we be “treated as a Gentile or a tax collector.”

Pretty black and white to me.
 
Hey,

I try to follow the Churchas instituted by Christ. I fall and need Grace as I stumble through my own way of the cross. I try to be orthodox (faithful), but ultimately, I sin and the act of sinning is heterodox in nature. So, I seek the Lord on my knees and through the Churhc built on the Rock.

And edwin could you elaborate on this line:
You could free yourself of so much sin by not believing in all the rules because it is those rules which convict you.
How can one make sin disappear thorugh ceasing to believe in the rules of Morality??? Take an atheist who believes that everything is relative in morality. If an atheist should choose to stop believing or never believein the Ten Commandments or the Two Greatet Commandments from the NT, would the person be “free … of so much sin” and cease to be convicted??? Thanks and God Bless.
 
40.png
edwinG:
To me you are beating your self unnecessarily.

Respectfully, edwin, I’m not “beating” myself, nor am I wearing a hair-shirt, I am a Christian who struggles against my fallen nature, as all good Christians do.
When have you disobeyed yourself is the question.
I hope you mean something more akin to when I have succumbed to my fallen nature, rather than lived in accordance with the dignity inherent in me as a creation of God. “I” have nothing to do with what is “right” about me and my choices. All good that I may do is a grace given me by God. So say I have “disobeyed [my]self…” (if that is indeed what you mean) is in fact wrong.
Well for you, when you have not obeyed all the different rules of your demonination.

I think you have a faulty understanding of the role of the Church. The “rules” (as you call them) are not a dictum from the Church. Things such as required Mass attendance are simply clearly defined guides. Because the Church points out to her members that choosing to serve self and forgo church services rather than spend an hour once a week worshipping God is objectively selfish and therefore sinful–the Church is not laying down some kind of “rule” to control her members–She is offering wisdom and guidance. I appreciate the clarity. I challenge you to name a “rule” of the Catholic faith that is not in reality moral wisdom and motherly guidance–ALL directed toward offering back to God the good that he has given us.

.
In your own words, Church to guide
, as the church holds the fundamental truth for us, but the church can not tell us day by day where and how and what to do. The demoninational church is like the bible, except we dont have to search for the correct passage, we can fast track the process and ask a minister. I’m really not sure what you are saying here…I don’t receive any kind of telegram or e-mail laying out my schedule for the day…that’s silly. How is asking a minister any different than asking a priest? Really, what is your point?
But Christ wants us to obey Him because He has work for us to do. If the work is outside the guidelines of the denominational church we should be very careful.
I believe the "denomination "churches of which you speak ARE outside the fullness of God’s truth. Non-Catholic Christians are part of God’s universal church–but they worship without the benefit of the complete revealed truth. Indeed, I agree…working outside of the fullness of truth, you should be careful. It is like sitting on a three legged stool–missing two of the legs.
You could free yourself of so much sin by not believing in all the rules because it is those rules which convict you.
Again–“rules”? Name them. Denying that something is sin releases me from sin? No. That is not so. That is like saying if there is no written law against something immoral, it really isn’t wrong. Not so. It is not the “rules” that convict me, it is the objective truth of the sin itself. Do you not agree that if one is capable, OBJECTIVELY, it is sinful to choose to not go to worship the Supreme Creator at least one hour a week. Do we not owe Him worship? Is it not pleasing to Him to see his creatures offer themselves back to Him in service? Would it, then, not be wrong to choose to serve my own whim, or laziness, or weakness and refuse to give back a tiny portion of his gift of life by attending a service to honor him? How is that a “rule” that convicts me, rather than an objective truth of my sinfulness that convicts me?
As Paul says I think in Romans, the rules or law is not bad, but in Christ the laws are fulfilled. Follow Him for in Him all rules and laws are obeyed, There is no sin then.
Are you sure you are following Him to the best of YOUR ability by the grace that God has given you?

Peace.

P.S. I hope it’s just a spelling slip—but two times you posted D-E-M-O-N-inations instead of D-E-N-O-M-ination…careful there…😉 I did it too…but I fixed it…don’t want to give anyone fuel for their fire!😛
 
Felicity

Your phrase “Non Catholic Christians” and your following words disturb me for two reasons. I believe you are saying that only Catholics(Roman Catholics) know the real truth…a bit too high and mighty for me. Other Christians have the real truth, maybe not all of them but then not all Catholics(Roman Catholics) have the real truth either. The second reason being that I just came from a board where Catholics(Roman Catholics) were not considered Christian and sometimes I see that some Roman Catholics certainly do not act or talk Christian.

feather
 
do you beat your wife or do you wait on her hand and foot (no middle ground here)?
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
do you beat your wife or do you wait on her hand and foot (no middle ground here)?
I’m sorry but with assent to the teachigns of the Church there is no middle ground. You either believe each and everything the Church teaches or you don’t.

One can believe and still struggle with sins and questions. But You must accept the authority of the Church no questions asked. To deny a teaching of the Chruch or have an obstinate doubt concerning the same is heresy.

Either you are orthodox or heterodox, there is no quasidox.
 
trelow

the Church says (the Pope says, I will assume that is the Church) that it is a sin to masturbate. So if I masturbate, does that make me a heterodox because I do it full well knowing and I don’t believe it is a sin… Just how far is this to be taken. It is necessary to know for a proper answer to be given.

feather
 
40.png
feather:
trelow

the Church says (the Pope says, I will assume that is the Church) that it is a sin to masturbate. So if I masturbate, does that make me a heterodox because I do it full well knowing and I don’t believe it is a sin… Just how far is this to be taken. It is necessary to know for a proper answer to be given.

feather
The question is not do you sin, it is do you accept that it is a sin?

Accepting that something is a sin and still doing it makes you a sinner, I can only thing of two pairs of feet that have touched this ground and failed to sin.
 
40.png
feather:
Felicity

Your phrase “Non Catholic Christians” and your following words disturb me for two reasons. I believe you are saying that only Catholics(Roman Catholics) know the real truth…a bit too high and mighty for me. Other Christians have the real truth, maybe not all of them but then not all Catholics(Roman Catholics) have the real truth either. The second reason being that I just came from a board where Catholics(Roman Catholics) were not considered Christian and sometimes I see that some Roman Catholics certainly do not act or talk Christian.

feather
Feather…
I’m sorry that the term “non-Catholic Christian” bothered you. I actually typed “Protestant” first and then, remembering that some Christians don’t consider themselves “Protestant” or “Catholic”, hought it would be the most fitting. I actually posted a thread a while back that asked for a definition (I believe I titled it: Define Protestant, please) and was told by a “Protestant” that “Non-Catholic Christian” would be the most correct term to use. Do you have a better one–that can differentiate Christians in the Catholic Church and those that are not?

About your reasons…I believe I said, *“Non-Catholic Christians are part of God’s universal church–but they worship without the benefit of the complete revealed truth.” *What I mean by that is that those not worshipping in the Catholic Church are worshipping without the benefit of the whole gift that God has given to His children. It does not mean that they are worshipping “wrong” per se, it means that they are denying themselves part of the full banquet God has prepared by denying some of the things that God has revealed and instructed His children to do. I am not saying that all Catholics follow the Church (the caterers , if you will of God’s banquet) fully either. God gives mankind His revealed Truth, the Church prepares and presents the banquet of Truth so that we might properly consume His goodness, and we partake to the extent we are able.

Your second point about the other discussion board you were on—how does their opinion relate to what I am saying? They are entitled to believe whatever they choose. I, by no means, am saying Protestant, or other non-Catholic Christians, are not Christian–I am saying they are without the WHOLE truth in their worship. I’m sorry if you find that offensive. I cannot say that Protestantism is on equal footing with the Catholic Church–it is deficiant–and I say that as a convert from Protestantism.

Do you think I have been un-Christian in the way I have presented my posts? In what way?

Peace to you, Feather.
 
40.png
feather:
trelow

the Church says (the Pope says, I will assume that is the Church) that it is a sin to masturbate. So if I masturbate, does that make me a heterodox because I do it full well knowing and I don’t believe it is a sin… Just how far is this to be taken. It is necessary to know for a proper answer to be given.

feather
First–the Pope alone is not the “Church”. The Pope is the head of the earthly Church as designated to Peter when Christ gave him the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and established His Church here 2000 years ago. The “Church” is a mystery.

*CCC *
770 The Church is in history, but at the same time she transcends it. It is only "with the eyes of faith"183 that one can see her in her visible reality and at the same time in her spiritual reality as bearer of divine life.
The Church - both visible and spiritual

*771 "The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope, and charity, as a visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men."184 The Church is at the same time: *
*- a "society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ; *
*- the visible society and the spiritual community; *
*- the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches."185 *
These dimensions together constitute “one complex reality which comes together from a human and a divine element”:186
Second–masterbation misuses the goodness God has given His creation. That is what makes it a sin–not because the Church or the Pope says so. It is OBJECTIVELY wrong in that God created mankind in His image, and when we do not live up to that dignity–it is wrong and thus a sin.
CCC 1767 In themselves passions are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will. Passions are said to be voluntary, "either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way."44 It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason.45
CCC 1768 Passions are morally good when they contribute to a good action, evil in the opposite case. The upright will orders the movements of the senses it appropriates to the good and to beatitude; an evil will succumbs to disordered passions and exacerbates them. Emotions and feelings can be taken up into the virtues or perverted by the vices.
 
40.png
Trelow:
The question is not do you sin, it is do you accept that it is a sin?

Accepting that something is a sin and still doing it makes you a sinner, I can only thing of two pairs of feet that have touched this ground and failed to sin.
That doesn’t really answer me. If I thought it was a sin and still did it, well I don’t know cuz that wasn’t what I asked.

The Church says masturbating is a sin. I do not believe it is a sin. So does that make me a heterodox?
 
Do you believe it is a sin to believe:
  1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
  2. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
  3. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect.—Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.
  4. The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western.—Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.
  5. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age.—Epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg, “Cum non sine,” July 14, 1864.
  6. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life.—Ibid.
  7. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church.—Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
  8. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.—Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
  9. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.—Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
  10. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.—Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.
  11. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.—Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM

Count me amongst the damned then.
 
40.png
feather:
That doesn’t really answer me. If I thought it was a sin and still did it, well I don’t know cuz that wasn’t what I asked.

The Church says masturbating is a sin. I do not believe it is a sin. So does that make me a heterodox?
yup.

Furthermore if you were an informed Catholic you would be guilty of heresy.

Why? The obstinate post-baptismal denial of a professed truth.

They Church does not make up these rules, She simply informs us of them. They hold true for all peoples regardless of their professed religion.
 
40.png
feather:
The Church says masturbating is a sin. I do not believe it is a sin. So does that make me a heterodox?
#1 you must understand that the Church teaches the FULLNESS of Truth as revealed by God.
#2 you must understand that the Truth is God’s Truth and not a teaching of “man”.
#3 You must recognize that masterbation is objectively wrong.
#4 You must willfully decide YOUR version of the truth is what you assent to follow rather than God’s Truth.
#5 You must willfully pursue your own will rather than God’s will.

Then it is heterodox…Only you and God know–He knows your heart.
 
40.png
amarischuk:
Do you believe it is a sin to believe:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM

Count me amongst the damned then.
All of your quotes deal with the Church not FORCING anyone to follow their teachings. The Church believes in the FREE WILL of all mankind. But if you profess Catholicism–you are obligated to practice what you profess–And Catholicism is very clear on what it professes to be TRUTH.

Otherwise…that’s heterodoxy.
 
  1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
The key phrase here is “light of reason.” We must follow God’s grace, not reject it in light of reason.
  1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
Again, there is some hope, but it is not good hope. People outside the Church are definitely at a disadvantage when it comes to salvation, which is why conversion needs to be emphasized.
  1. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect.—Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.
She does have temporal power over Vatican City. She also can use force when necessary. See the Swiss Guard
  1. The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western.—Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.
The break occured once and has stayed broken over theology, not arbitrary conduct. The Eastern Orthodox don’t accept the primacy of Rome.
  1. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age.—Epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg, “Cum non sine,” July 14, 1864.
Again, schools should not teach relativism, but truth. I think it would be great if the prevalent opinion of the age wasn’t taught in our schools. Get rid of all the pro-gay, pro-birth control stuff in schools.
  1. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life.—Ibid.
Again, Catholic children need to be taught their faith and not naturalism.
  1. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church.—Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
Even our new Pope says that the Church needs to exert her moral authority on the State. Should the Church not lobby against abortion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top