U
unstoppable_II
Guest
It might already be too long, but I think a distinction should be made between heresy and apostasy when addressing the OP question.
- Status
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Are you sure that Europe during the medieval period and the Reformation was really all that serene? It doesn’t sound like what I’ve been reading about in the history books I have for those periods.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
I think it could be reasonable for someone to want to be Catholic even if he or she does not consider the Church to be infallible as traditionally understood: What if that individual simply believes the Catholic Church makes the most sense out of other confessions and religions? He or she may not agree with everything the Church says the individual Catholic must believe, but there could be fundamental things that makes the person consider the Catholic Church to be MOST right than other faiths. This is not ideal to some, but I think it makes sense. I also think that conservative and traditional members (using these terms in an understood way in this context) should embrace these persons.
C
cmodrmac
Guest
if one dissents and their is a reasonable expectation that thru the individual’s action change can be implemented then one should consider staying in a particular denomination-
if one is in a denomination where change is only induced after centuries or thru the experience of a catastrophe one should consider leaving rather than becoming bitter
it is my impression that there are many dissenting Catholics who remain in the Roman Church-
our Priest who is a former roman Catholic discussed this-
The Priest commented “I could remain a dissenting bitter Catholic or I could find freedom in another denomination”
It is also a bit more confusing do not the majority of RC practice birth control but stay-it seems the intensity of the dissent also plays a role-surely they dissent but do not get worked up about it-they likely also may feel that change can be effected as well
if one is in a denomination where change is only induced after centuries or thru the experience of a catastrophe one should consider leaving rather than becoming bitter
it is my impression that there are many dissenting Catholics who remain in the Roman Church-
our Priest who is a former roman Catholic discussed this-
The Priest commented “I could remain a dissenting bitter Catholic or I could find freedom in another denomination”It is also a bit more confusing do not the majority of RC practice birth control but stay-it seems the intensity of the dissent also plays a role-surely they dissent but do not get worked up about it-they likely also may feel that change can be effected as well
J
JurisPrudens
Guest
Yes, their sympathy to the Church is worthy of praise and they should be embraced with welcome.
Still, you can not be a full member of the Church, taking communion on par with others, until you come to terms with all the doctrines, infallibility included.
D
Duane1966
Guest
Clearly? Obviously not to the people of that time, and place.
Your argument would be better served if you had said: "Clearly any death at the hands of another human being (self defense and war not included) goes against the will of the Spirit. You make it sound like more humane ways of execution are okay in the eyes of the Spirit.
Heresy was considered a capital crime. Burning was an accepted form of execution of that particular capital crime by the civil authorities back in the day. Just as hanging, firing squads, electrocution, and lethal injection for capital crimes in later years. Crucifixion was an accepted form in the days of the Roman Empire.
You take offense at the pope saying it was not against the will of the Spirit. Clearly the reformers did not, as was proven by their actions during the Reformation. (Luther did say that burning of witches was acceptable. Is witchcraft worse than heresy?) I look at Leo’s answer as basically saying: that civil authorities have the right to perform that type of capital punishment, which again was the norm for that time in history. Just as in latter years the Church has stated that civil authorities do have the right to exercise capital punishment. I am positive that people through the years have called any form of capital punishment against the will of the Spirit.
Are drowning, forced starvation, firing squads where intentional wounding of the victim so that they remain alive laying in pain, beheading, lethal injection where you may fight to stay awake knowing that when you close your eyes you are done, lethal injection where they did not administer the shot correctly, electrocution where not enough voltage was administered, …less ickier to you, because they are not to me.
Just about everybody’s views nowadays would be considered horrifying in the past. (You mean adultery is not punishable by stoning anymore, and thieves do not get crucified? Send me back to the past.) We look at much of the past as barbaric, without a doubt the future will look at us the same way. (You mean people really said that person who is now 40, was not a human being in the womb. What was it, an alien?)
D
Duane1966
Guest
I have heard people say they could remain bitter Christians, or become free Atheists. Does their happiness at being Atheist mean Christianity is not true, and Atheism is?
I would ask him why he was bitter?
By the way, I know a priest that was bitter when he left, and twenty years later is bitter that he left.(Truly a pitiable human being).
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Should dissenting Catholics be encouraged to leave the Church?
Of course not!
I imagine there are some dissenting Catholics in the Communion line with me every Sunday.
No one can tell a dissenting Catholic from a faithful Catholic…until the dissenting Catholic brings up the subject. For example…he could mention casually that he is 100% against the Church’s policy of ordaining only men. Now we know he is a dissenting Catholic.
This is hardly a cause to begin the excommunication process or tell him to turn over his box of offering envelopes…but it does call for some pastoral action.
It would be the ultimate failure in pastoral care to mislead someone by NOT explaining why they are wrong and what the Church expects of them.
The real damage occurs when the dissenting Catholic becomes “vocal” and begins to expound his dissent. There is nothing worse than hearing someone say: “I’m a lifelong Catholic. went to Catholic School, love my religion…but I don’t accept the Church’s position on…abortion…contraception…gay marriage”…etc. This confuses Catholics who may be a little behind in their religious education and certainly puts question marks over the heads of those who may be considering joining our Church.
The most dangerous are the academics who publish their dissents (Social media, Blogs…forums as well as print media) It would be up to a Church authority higher than me to deal with these folks. And the Church has the means of dealing with them.
Of course not!
I imagine there are some dissenting Catholics in the Communion line with me every Sunday.
No one can tell a dissenting Catholic from a faithful Catholic…until the dissenting Catholic brings up the subject. For example…he could mention casually that he is 100% against the Church’s policy of ordaining only men. Now we know he is a dissenting Catholic.
This is hardly a cause to begin the excommunication process or tell him to turn over his box of offering envelopes…but it does call for some pastoral action.
It would be the ultimate failure in pastoral care to mislead someone by NOT explaining why they are wrong and what the Church expects of them.
The real damage occurs when the dissenting Catholic becomes “vocal” and begins to expound his dissent. There is nothing worse than hearing someone say: “I’m a lifelong Catholic. went to Catholic School, love my religion…but I don’t accept the Church’s position on…abortion…contraception…gay marriage”…etc. This confuses Catholics who may be a little behind in their religious education and certainly puts question marks over the heads of those who may be considering joining our Church.
The most dangerous are the academics who publish their dissents (Social media, Blogs…forums as well as print media) It would be up to a Church authority higher than me to deal with these folks. And the Church has the means of dealing with them.
N
NovusFidem
Guest
I dunno. As they say, half the truth is often a whole lie - it can mislead others, instead of guiding them to the right path.
Why would you **willingly **stay at a place where you don’t believe you’ll be able to receive proper care? If Jesus gave us a Church (Matt 16:16-19) that would teach us all that He taught (Matt 28:20), why stay at another that you know won’t do the whole job? That, in fact, teaches lies that you can judge as being lies?
There’s a story I heard once, that said that religion is like a Guide to help you leave a dangerous forest. Staying at the wrong religion would be like deciding to follow the Wrong Guide, the guy that doesn’t seem to really know the way out. You can tell that he doesn’t know the way out because he often points back to the way you came, or to the river full of crocodiles, or to the bear’s cave. And still you follow him?
Same applies to those religious teachings. If I feel they teach wrong, then they will probably mislead me, sooner or later. This one teaching (the Way Back) I may have noticed that is wrong. But that other teaching (the Bear’s Cave) might seem a good idea at first, and - BAM - condemned for eternity
I also think we should embrace the dissenters. We are the ones following the good guides (they came with guns to repel the bears, a complete map of the area, and they look like Rambo), and as we walk, we see all these people walking willingly to the Bear’s Cave and the Crocodile’s River. We must stop to help them, before it’s too late
This all may sound silly, but I think it is how we feel. Those who believe they found where the whole Revealed Truth is, can only see dissenting opinions as a danger for those who follow those opinions… While you may not be sure if what you believe is right, those who declare “This is the right Church!” are certain they are right :heaven:
S
sallybutler
Guest
My initial response is no.
However, I understand that, much like one might need to ‘get away’ from their mother, what they (and this question) don’t get is that their mother still loves them and does not recognize the break and will be there to help when asked.
Would you tell someone, whose mother you knew to be exemplary, to leave her and never associate with her again?
However, I understand that, much like one might need to ‘get away’ from their mother, what they (and this question) don’t get is that their mother still loves them and does not recognize the break and will be there to help when asked.
Would you tell someone, whose mother you knew to be exemplary, to leave her and never associate with her again?
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Hello Dan,
Aside from what you claim about days gone by, when I read your opinion and you make a distinction today between a subject and a member, it sounds to me as if you disagree with Fr Grondin that today’s Canon Law currently does not recognize that someone can leave the Catholic Church. And that they might become non-practicing but still a member, and that the Church’s laws consider anyone baptized Catholic to always be Catholic.
But irregardless, it’s really not something I spend much time worrying about for me personally anymore though. I only know from experience I grew very tired of being told by laity that I could not or should not call myself a Catholic despite what I was told by Church leadership. And grew very tired of being called names such as heretic, so I simply finished leaving what practice of the faith I still hung onto. I guess you could say the “tough love” backfired with me if the goal was my return to full communion.
But oh well anyway my original point was merely to avoid confusion as to who the Church calls a Catholic.
Peace
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Does the moral law change over time? Is it true that what was morally correct in the past, is now morally unacceptable?
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,
No, I don’t disagree with it. Catholics are always obliged, by the law, to follow the law. Baptism/reception into the Catholic Church has a permanent effect. In practice, though, people live “outside the bosom of the Church” (a phrase that is found in various documents on the topic of heresy/excommunication/etc.).
Dan
N
NovusFidem
Guest
For the society, yes. The Church preaches the same things from almost 2000 years ago, but today people (secular society) thinks differently and say that the Church is morally wrong in some aspects.
Example: for society, it is morally unacceptable for us to be intolerant of homosexual acts, even though SOCIETY considered those acts immoral just a few decades ago. Society’s moral understanding changed, while the Church’s didn’t.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
According to the Book of Joshua, it was commanded by God that the Israelites practice the ban against the Canaanites in which every man, woman, child and animal was killed:
Joshua 6:20-21:
Joshua 8:24-27:
Nowadays, it would probably be considered immoral to completely annihilate your enemies during warfare, especially the civilian population who are non-combatants. So it appears that moral law has changed.
B
benjohnson
Guest
From the Lutheran perspective, it’s quite normal and expected to to have private doubts and personal ideas - it’s entirely another to actively oppose the faith given to us and promulgate error amongst the flock.
I would add a fourth item:
That reflecting the faith given to us is more important than promulgating our own ideas.
This also cuts both ways - I know have been guilty of promulgating a crystallized and hard version of the faith out of knowledge, and not a grace-filled reflection out of Christian love.
I would add a fourth item:
That reflecting the faith given to us is more important than promulgating our own ideas.
This also cuts both ways - I know have been guilty of promulgating a crystallized and hard version of the faith out of knowledge, and not a grace-filled reflection out of Christian love.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Yes of course people live outside the bosom, outside the full communion of the Catholic Church. I know this as I’m one of the many who do. That’s why even though according at least to Catholic teaching those of us who do are still Catholic members of the Church, we are just not considered to be in good standing. One certainly can leave the practice of the faith and many have. But that’s different than the Church saying one can leave the Church. In any case I think in the end we are probably more on the same page than we perhaps earlier thought. Nice talking with you. God’s blessings and peace.
O
O_Lumen
Guest
A slight nuance: it would be immoral to do so outside of a divine command by God. What God commands can by no means be considered immoral—since His commands reflect His nature, which is goodness itself—even if our doing so on our own initiative would be. We obviously don’t have an infinite intellect, and our motivation is often sinful, and our behavior is often tainted by original sin. God is in no way subject to the same limitations as we, and we can trust that His judgments reflect the most perfect “solution” to any given “problem.”
In response to the thread title: No, they should be encouraged to stop being Modernists.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
So if our God gave a command (or we believed He gave a command) to rape children, then it would not be immoral in that case? What is good or just or right and what is bad or unjust or wrong can only be determined based on what God tells us? For example, we wouldn’t know that murder is wrong unless God told us it’s wrong in the Ten Commandments?
I think that we can tell instinctively when something is just or unjust and what is unjust or wrong for us to do would also be unjust or wrong for God to do. In my opinion, if God is portrayed in Scripture as ordering something that we sense to be unjust or wrong, it probably didn’t come from God.
Fortunately, the scholarly consensus of most Biblical scholars is that the Book of Joshua is part of the Deuteronomistic History which was probably composed during the reign of King Josiah of Judah in the 7th century BC. The bans which describe the annihilation of whole cities including women and children almost certainly never took place and are, in my opinion, only a pious fiction from the imagination of the so called Deuteronomistic historian. According to the archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silbeman in their book *The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Scripture *(New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001), pp. 81-82:
K
kozlosap
Guest
Does anyone else notice that the vast majority of those (including moi) that disagree with Church doctrines are mainly concerned with social issues and NOT basic theological dogma? I am a cradle Catholic and love the Mass and the community of my Jesuit parish. That I do not agree with and will not support the Chuch’s stance on LGBTQ issues has absolutely nothing to do with my belief in the True Presence. Just let someone try and run me out of the Church - this old lady knows how to swing a mean Designer purse!
- Status