Q
quasimodo
Guest
Kay Cee:
I like this reasoning
- Status
B
BillP
Guest
Way to selectively misquote to create a strawman there fix and you even quote it correctly before you misquote it:
Dissent might not be TOTALLY compatible, but apparantly the Pope (God be good to him) thought it was at least “partially” compatible.
F
fix
Guest
I quoted the text from the article as it was stated. The author did not give the direct quote.
How do you get it is partially compatible to dissent?
I do not understand your point?
That the church does not act on each and every instance of dissent in no way means She approves of it or it is good for one’s salvation.
B
BillP
Guest
First of all let me apologize to you personally. You weren’t misquoting to create a straw man arguement. your source was.
From the Pope’s statement that dissent wasn’t “totally compatible with being a good Catholic”. Saying dissent isn’t “totally compatible” implies that it IS at least “partially compatible”. My interpretation of “partially compatible” means dissent is acceptable as long as one is sincerely working to resolve it.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Looking at the history of the Church it seems there have always been problems in parish areas, thus the epistles encouraging the leading deacons in the area to remain strong in the faith to correct any errors.
And yet, it seems the problems continued far beyond what we see in scripture. The Church Fathers writings indicate a steady tug of war down the line and then Councils were called to clear these matters up once and for all (which turns out, wasn’t ‘for all’ after all), but the bible was put together that way as were the creeds.
It just seems in the 2000 history of the Church what we witness today is similar to what went on back then. Perhaps it’s just going to be the nature of the process of coversion to have these things going on.
If you really think about it the Church has got to be Satan’s #1 priority so it’s no wonder She is constantly under attack. I refuse to lose faith, hope or confidence with various news stories highlighting the type of attacks we endure. We’ll be ok in the end, but certainly we much keep praying.
As for cafeteria Catholics - education is the key - which is why JPII called for the New Evangelization…and that’s been happening - we’re seeing the fruits of that effort today in more active, more knowledgeable, more faithful young Catholics. Patience, courage, faith and prayer, people…it’s going to be ok.
And yet, it seems the problems continued far beyond what we see in scripture. The Church Fathers writings indicate a steady tug of war down the line and then Councils were called to clear these matters up once and for all (which turns out, wasn’t ‘for all’ after all), but the bible was put together that way as were the creeds.
It just seems in the 2000 history of the Church what we witness today is similar to what went on back then. Perhaps it’s just going to be the nature of the process of coversion to have these things going on.
If you really think about it the Church has got to be Satan’s #1 priority so it’s no wonder She is constantly under attack. I refuse to lose faith, hope or confidence with various news stories highlighting the type of attacks we endure. We’ll be ok in the end, but certainly we much keep praying.
As for cafeteria Catholics - education is the key - which is why JPII called for the New Evangelization…and that’s been happening - we’re seeing the fruits of that effort today in more active, more knowledgeable, more faithful young Catholics. Patience, courage, faith and prayer, people…it’s going to be ok.
F
fix
Guest
I am sorry about the confusion. Dissent I think intends one rejects the authority of the Church. If one is accepting what is taught, but struggling, that is not dissent, right?
I cannot see how any dissent is compatible with being a good Catholic. If one rejects the authority of the Church to teach, one is not faithful. If one is sincerly working to understand all this that is one thing but to claim, for example, the Church is wrong about a particular topic is unacceptable.
E
estesbob
Guest
This is not true. The Church is clear that the only circumstances a Catholic Politician can vote for abortion is if the law they are voting for is more restrictive on abortion than the current law.the Church is in a difficult position in this regard… a politician,
can be a good Catholic, not approve of abortion, but still
vote for abortion, because he might feel he was elected to
speak for his ‘constituency’, which he feels is pro-choice…
I
1
1ke
Guest
mary bobo:
The Church is clear in its teachings so it’s not approving of any dissenter’s activities.
However, to police 1 billion people worldwide is not possible, nor desirable. The Church continues to teach and people can obey or not. Those who are publically members of groups --such as “Catholics” For A Free Choice-- have been excommunicated or placed under other sanctions. So, what more can they do? Individuals are talked to individually by their pastors, you may never know about those.
Then, of course, there are those individuals who are formally censured by Rome. That takes time as it is an ecclesial process-- through the proper channels. Even censure doesn’t stop them from speaking out in all cases-- ie, Hans Kung, Sister Grammerick, etc. The Church has no civil authority to toss these people in a cell and cut off their free speech rights… it can only cut off their church rights-- and has done so. Hans Kung is a well-selling author even though his Catholic credentials have been stripped.
I can’t imagine trying to stop all dissenting speech or activity. It’s just not possible-- although certainly they should continue to censure those that are publically misrepresenting church teaching.
I think the best course is to clearly teach the Truth. Of course this is done either well or poorly from place to place. There is much work to be done.
“The Church” is a big place, with many individual people and groups. I’m not sure exactly what your husband wants “the church” to do???
The Church is clear in its teachings so it’s not approving of any dissenter’s activities.
However, to police 1 billion people worldwide is not possible, nor desirable. The Church continues to teach and people can obey or not. Those who are publically members of groups --such as “Catholics” For A Free Choice-- have been excommunicated or placed under other sanctions. So, what more can they do? Individuals are talked to individually by their pastors, you may never know about those.
Then, of course, there are those individuals who are formally censured by Rome. That takes time as it is an ecclesial process-- through the proper channels. Even censure doesn’t stop them from speaking out in all cases-- ie, Hans Kung, Sister Grammerick, etc. The Church has no civil authority to toss these people in a cell and cut off their free speech rights… it can only cut off their church rights-- and has done so. Hans Kung is a well-selling author even though his Catholic credentials have been stripped.
I can’t imagine trying to stop all dissenting speech or activity. It’s just not possible-- although certainly they should continue to censure those that are publically misrepresenting church teaching.
I think the best course is to clearly teach the Truth. Of course this is done either well or poorly from place to place. There is much work to be done.
R
reen12
Guest
I think that 5 groups exist:
a-don’t know what the Church teaches on X
b-don’t care what the Church teaches on X
., I’ll go to Mass and communion. You go
ahead and do your ‘rules’ thing]
c-those who do know what the Church teaches,
and try their best to follow same
d-those who know what the Church teaches,
reject same, and leave
e-those for whom what the Church teaches is
a matter of indifference. These may or may
not attend Mass.
Phrases like: ‘before it’s too late’ ‘you’ll go to hell’
‘you’re abandoning the truth’ don’t *resonate *with
groups b, d, e, who are unphased by admonitions.
In order for admonition to have any effect:
-a person has to believe that their salvation is at stake.
-a person has to believe that the Church speaks for Christ,
infallibly, in terms of faith and morals.
If the response is: “what you’re saying is irrelevant.”
I’m here to go to Mass and receive communion.
Get outta my face."
That’s a whole other ballgame.
[If this is coupled with a non-belief in the Real Presence,
this certainly makes the situation more complex.]
To try to hold that something is “true” or to state:
“This is the truth” in the midst of a cultural that tends
to say: “That’s true for *you” *or "That is a “truth-claim”
or [one I often use] “That is an unsupported assertion.”
complicates evangelization.
The second factor that makes things difficult is:
Some people of faith tend to forget that they are
*talking about ‘faith’…*which leaves the proclamation
of same open to: true for you - truth claim - unsupported
assertion.
And the final point: There are those who seem to think
that if a person is* told* the truths of the faith, these will
be overwhelmingly 'intellectually compelling." Which, of course, leaves out the element of grace.
knowledge + grace = faith
knowledge alone does not = faith
Since I fall into category “d” I find this discussion of
interest.
reen12
a-don’t know what the Church teaches on X
b-don’t care what the Church teaches on X
., I’ll go to Mass and communion. You go
ahead and do your ‘rules’ thing]
c-those who do know what the Church teaches,
and try their best to follow same
d-those who know what the Church teaches,
reject same, and leave
e-those for whom what the Church teaches is
a matter of indifference. These may or may
not attend Mass.
Phrases like: ‘before it’s too late’ ‘you’ll go to hell’
‘you’re abandoning the truth’ don’t *resonate *with
groups b, d, e, who are unphased by admonitions.
In order for admonition to have any effect:
-a person has to believe that their salvation is at stake.
-a person has to believe that the Church speaks for Christ,
infallibly, in terms of faith and morals.
If the response is: “what you’re saying is irrelevant.”
I’m here to go to Mass and receive communion.
Get outta my face."
That’s a whole other ballgame.
[If this is coupled with a non-belief in the Real Presence,
this certainly makes the situation more complex.]
To try to hold that something is “true” or to state:
“This is the truth” in the midst of a cultural that tends
to say: “That’s true for *you” *or "That is a “truth-claim”
or [one I often use] “That is an unsupported assertion.”
complicates evangelization.
The second factor that makes things difficult is:
Some people of faith tend to forget that they are
*talking about ‘faith’…*which leaves the proclamation
of same open to: true for you - truth claim - unsupported
assertion.
And the final point: There are those who seem to think
that if a person is* told* the truths of the faith, these will
be overwhelmingly 'intellectually compelling." Which, of course, leaves out the element of grace.
knowledge + grace = faith
knowledge alone does not = faith
Since I fall into category “d” I find this discussion of
interest.
reen12
F
fix
Guest
S
Sherlock
Guest
True, but only to a point. When people speak of “cafeteria Catholics”, they are referring to people who pick and choose what they like, and—here’s the important distinction—have no intention of obeying the Church on the matters with which they disagree. Nor will they typically spend much time figuring out why the Church teaches what she does. This is in contrast with those who attempt to live in accordance with the Church, but obviously fail short due to the tendency towards sin.
I can, with all honesty, say that I attempt to live by every single teaching of Jesus’s Church. I am NOT a “cafeteria Catholic”, though I am a sinner.
E
estesbob
Guest
Thats sad. i am one “C” who will praying for your return. I just got back froi recieving the body of Christ-I would not turn forfeit that opportunity under any circumstances.
S
Sherlock
Guest
“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)
R
reen12
Guest
quote: fix
I see “open” as a fuction of grace.
To say that each case is “different” does not mean
that general ‘categories’ may not be constructed
or be of use. And the category may help to understand
where a person is coming from.
I would say that each person is *unique *in his/her
experience, and should not be spoken to -or prayed
for - as a ‘member of a category.’
To say that so and so is a ‘cafeteria Catholic’ is,
in itself, a ‘category.’
One of the points I’m trying to make is that grace is
key.
reen12
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying.
I see “open” as a fuction of grace.
To say that each case is “different” does not mean
that general ‘categories’ may not be constructed
or be of use. And the category may help to understand
where a person is coming from.
I would say that each person is *unique *in his/her
experience, and should not be spoken to -or prayed
for - as a ‘member of a category.’
To say that so and so is a ‘cafeteria Catholic’ is,
in itself, a ‘category.’
One of the points I’m trying to make is that grace is
key.
reen12
R
reen12
Guest
I’ll tell you what blows me away.
Hearing of Catholics who don’t believe in the
Real Presence. What’s the point of being
Catholic, if that belief is not held?
The Mass is the central act of worship -
yet if transubstantiation is not held to take
place, how distinguish that position, from many
Protestant theological positions on the
Eucharist?
And, are those who do not believe in the Real Presence,
‘cafeteria Catholics’ ?
Should the lack of belief in the Real Presence take priority -
in terms of the hierarchy addressing the ‘cafeteria Catholics’
phenomenon?
reen12
Hearing of Catholics who don’t believe in the
Real Presence. What’s the point of being
Catholic, if that belief is not held?
The Mass is the central act of worship -
yet if transubstantiation is not held to take
place, how distinguish that position, from many
Protestant theological positions on the
Eucharist?
And, are those who do not believe in the Real Presence,
‘cafeteria Catholics’ ?
Should the lack of belief in the Real Presence take priority -
in terms of the hierarchy addressing the ‘cafeteria Catholics’
phenomenon?
reen12
R
Richard_Hurtz
Guest
I fall into category “d” as well.
R
reen12
Guest
quote: Richard_Hurtz
the Church, which was a lengthy one.
reen12
I post in an effort to work through my relationship with
the Church, which was a lengthy one.
reen12
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Well it would seem to me that one would have to believe in the magesterium of the Church before they could believe in the Real Presence since the teaching of the Real Presence comes from the magesterium (and the whole infallibility thing)…
So my question becomes how can a Catholic believe in the Real Presence but not in the magesterium, such that they accept ‘some’ Church teachings on faith and morals (magesterium with infallibility, the same as which was relied upon for faith in the teaching of the Real Presence) but not others?
R
Richard_Hurtz
Guest
I would certainly agree with this to the extent that if someone believed in the Infallibility of the Magesterium they would also believe in all other Catholilc Dogmas.
R
reen12
Guest
Originally Posted by YinYangMom
Well it would seem to me that one would have to believe in the magesterium of the Church before they could believe in the Real Presence since the teaching of the Real Presence comes from the magesterium (and the whole infallibility thing)…
quote: Richard_Hurtz
1- a person would have to have an “interest” in
what the magisterium had to say
2-would have to accept that this magisterium was infallible
The question then becomes, I think:
How many Catholics are going to Mass and receiving
communion, on a Sunday, for whom the ‘category’
magisterium has no meaning. I don’t think it’s a
question of “rejecting” magisterial teaching, in some cases,
but, rather, in not even being aware of same.
And, if this assessment is accurate, the further question
then becomes:
How is this possible?
Do some Catholics render ‘magisterium’ as: “The Church says…”
and not understand same as an infallible teaching office?
Is it possible [this just occured to me]…is it possible that
we have some families, out there, who say:
The kids need to “have” “religion” in their lives.
We we’re “brought up Catholic” so we’ll “bring” our kids to church?
There’s a school of thought that refers to “live” issues…
that is, does this issue have importance to me…do I see
same as relevant?
I continually see references to: we need better education etc.
But if the “topics” being addressed are not “live” issues for
the ‘hearers’…I dunno.
reen12
Well it would seem to me that one would have to believe in the magesterium of the Church before they could believe in the Real Presence since the teaching of the Real Presence comes from the magesterium (and the whole infallibility thing)…
quote: Richard_Hurtz
I would say:
1- a person would have to have an “interest” in
what the magisterium had to say
2-would have to accept that this magisterium was infallible
The question then becomes, I think:
How many Catholics are going to Mass and receiving
communion, on a Sunday, for whom the ‘category’
magisterium has no meaning. I don’t think it’s a
question of “rejecting” magisterial teaching, in some cases,
but, rather, in not even being aware of same.
And, if this assessment is accurate, the further question
then becomes:
How is this possible?
Do some Catholics render ‘magisterium’ as: “The Church says…”
and not understand same as an infallible teaching office?
Is it possible [this just occured to me]…is it possible that
we have some families, out there, who say:
The kids need to “have” “religion” in their lives.
We we’re “brought up Catholic” so we’ll “bring” our kids to church?
There’s a school of thought that refers to “live” issues…
that is, does this issue have importance to me…do I see
same as relevant?
I continually see references to: we need better education etc.
But if the “topics” being addressed are not “live” issues for
the ‘hearers’…I dunno.
reen12
- Status