The Intellectually Honest Cafeteria Catholic

[Thorolfr]

Not sure where you are going with that.
The Church says absolutely nothing that contradicts established science. You can certainly point to literalist readings of Scripture in regard to human origins as contradicting, but those are literalist, and the Catholic Church are not literalists.

“The dome over the sky” etc…,.
We (Catholics) do not read scripture in literalist fashion.

But as has already been discussed, for example, established science rejects monogenesis (the idea that all modern humans are descended from a single human couple). But the Catholic Church must stick to monogenesis no matter what the science shows because the Council of Trent decreed that Catholics must believe this and it was reiterated in the First Vatican Council and by Pope Pius XII in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis. So it doesn’t matter what science discovers from human genetics and paleoanthropology about the unliklihood or near impossibility of monogenesis. Catholics must believe in monogenesis since Trent and Humani Generis have established this as a supposedly infallible teaching.

 

[clem456]

But as has already been discussed, for example, established science rejects monogenesis (the idea that all modern humans are descended from a single human couple). But the Catholic Church must stick to monogenesis no matter what the science shows because the Council of Trent decreed that Catholics must believe this and it was reiterated in the First Vatican Council and by Pope Pius XII in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis. So it doesn’t matter what science discovers from human genetics and paleoanthropology about the unliklihood or near impossibility of monogenesis. Catholics must believe in monogenesis since Trent and Humani Generis have established this as a supposedly infallible teaching.

You are not understanding the relationship between science and theology.

Catholicism does not dispute the science of evolution, as long as that science does not pronounce on spiritual matters.
Theology teaches that human beings are
1 body
2 soul
in unity.

The teaching of theology is, that God gave two first parents souls to go along with their bodies. Theology does not make a scientific statement as to how our material “stuff” got here.

How can science prove or disprove ensoulment? Science has it’s area of competence, theology does what it does.
Science might overstep it’s bounds and use it’s lack of evidence to try and disprove God, but that’s not science, that’s religion. Good scientists have respect for the spheres of competence of both. Likewise the faithful should not use our faith to limit legitimate scientific inquiry.
Faith and reason inform one another.

 

[Ender]

I’ve never been Catholic,but the claim of infallibility is one of the doctrines of the Catholic Church that seems to me to be one of its greatest weaknesses. If every claim and doctrine of the Church is infallible, it’s like saying, “If you don’t believe in every claim and doctrine of the Church 100%, you might as well not believe in any of them.” There’s no room for believing in only 99% or 98% of the doctrines or claims of the Church.

The church has never asserted that every claim and doctrine is infallible. Your concern about the doctrine is based on a misunderstanding of what that doctrine really is. The very fact that the church makes a distinction between infallible and ordinary doctrine shows clearly that infallibility is not universal and doesn’t apply to every doctrine.

Ender

 

[Abu]

This is the clearest summation of the requirements for both dogma and doctrine:
The three levels of teaching from *Ad Tuendam Fidem *(ATF) are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
See:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 1998, the Solemnity of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

• Joseph Card. Ratzinger
  Prefect
• Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.
  Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
  Secretary
  [This commentary was issued coincident with the promulgation of “Ad tuendam fidem” by Pope John Paul II, modifying the Oriental and Latin codes of canon law.]

Thus no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment for the whole Church, that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false. The words ex cathedra are never included.

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

No other sect or religion was founded by the Christ.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… I wonder if there really is such a thing as an intellectually honest cafeteria Catholic? Can one be intellectually honest and morally rebellious at the same time?

(here we go again )

Eat everything on the menu, BUT NOT ALL AT ONCE.

Keep coming back!

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… If you believe historians, perhaps you would agree with them that there is no evidence of the Exodus and therefore in their professional opinion, believe Exodus never happened at all due to absence of corroborating data.

…

Historians are a diverse lot. Some identify bits of evidence for it. I’m not citing. Just saying to enquiring minds all fields remain open.

It’s up to OP to discern whether this helps him with his quest or not. It helped me along my journey.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Originally Posted by carefullytread
They have decided not to pray to God for understanding on the issue as they have decided there is nothing to understand, rather, that the Church is mistaken.

Goodness, am I the only person here who’s bothered by this?

It sounds like deciding one is more intelligent than God Himself.

Not brilliantly worded, but I take it like this:

One has provisionally decided that the Church hasn’t in practice, in the here and now, in my proximity, made comprehensible to me.

A huge number of us with some element of being “Catholic” in our background are lacking significant points in our background AND aren’t in proximity with trained and experienced lay or clergy catechists and others able to bring the thing to life.

In a communist society, people do what they are told.

In your great grandmother’'s time people appeared to do what they were told but were surrounded by examples and they were eager to catch on because they saw.

We ought not to write off people who are not 100% falsely posing as wanting to show an interest in Catholic faith (as agents provocateurs).

For different individuals apparent stumbling blocks may be over completely different issues.

Before the year 300 a safe space to not reflect badly on the main body of Catholics was called a catechumenate, which lasted between 2 and 4 years - not too much longer than the lead up to RCIA (though significantly less hurried all the same). People could also re-enter it if coming back after apostasising.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

But as has already been discussed, for example, established science rejects monogenesis …

There is no such thing as “established science” (Clem’s phrase). There are scientists quite a lot of whom say almost the same thing and some say other things.

There really are lots of points of knowledge in various fields that just don’t feature in important kinds of catechesis.

“Convincing people of the truth of Catholic belief” is a matter of showing people whether Jesus Christ will work in their lives or not. If the enquirer has rejected hope, this will not be enough, if Catholic insiders can genuinely show it. If a Catholic insider thinks they can show it but Jesus might more likely say they aren’t showing it, it’s not for them to assume that the enquirer is rejecting belief or hope. If the enquirer hasn’t rejected hope, he will carry on digging, taking all the time he needs, exploring what issues he wants when he wants,

It’s not objectively a matter of point scoring and winning arguments, Thorolf, no matter what impression is projected by some.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… a safe space to not reflect badly on the main body of Catholics was called a catechumenate …

Additionally and crucially, the safe space before the safe space is when folks like me are empathetic to co-explore along with everyone’s seemingly random and non-textbook curiosity and eagerness to know all sorts, without it being subtly implied that doing so is “a bit suspect”.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… Theology does not make a scientific statement as to how our material “stuff” got here. …

This is a good point in itself.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

This is hitting pretty close to what I was wondering, if one can be that state of belief and not be deeply hypocritical. It seems that, as an empirical matter, it’s not a place where people stay if they are actively engaging their faith. They tend to float either towards or away, or just stop worrying about it. That seems like a pretty strong evidence against it be a worldview you can hold for long.

Glad to hear that you ended up in a place with solid foundation. Walking this ground is like twisting yourself in knots to avoid the obvious conclusion.

Yes but it can take a lifetime and it depends who one is surrounded with and a myriad other factors. Ignore anyone that is impatient with you. Have a drive to find things out for you.

People might “stop worrying about it” temporarily, to resume more productively at a later date.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I’ve never been Catholic,but the claim of infallibility is one of the doctrines of the Catholic Church that seems to me to be one of its greatest weaknesses. If every claim and doctrine of the Church is infallible, it’s like saying, “If you don’t believe in every claim and doctrine of the Church 100%, you might as well not believe in any of them.” There’s no room for believing in only 99% or 98% of the doctrines or claims of the Church.

…

Thorolf, I think that, one day, you had a question. They didn’t answer it. They gave you a false substitute for an answer to what your question was, and that is, the word “infallibility”.

I think it is all more likely a matter of starting with the 1%, then the 3%, the 10%, then it gradually builds up. It may hint more and more at areas of infallibility, some way along the line.

Are there areas of being Lutheran that don’t have much to do with why the ELCA are different from other Lutherans?

It can be revealing to find out how much treasure is in issues that are not “hot button” issues. These can the the most productive areas of active exploration.