The Perils of Dissent

[The_Augustinian]

" Whoever listens to you listens to Me. Whoever rejects you rejects Me. And whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me." --Luke 10:16

Within the Catholic Church, there are certain individuals–in fact, a large number of them–who knowingly reject certain teachings of the Church. Even though they reject some teachings, they insist on staying in the Church for whatever reason; perhaps they still believe in the Eucharist, or in the power of the Sacraments. However, this same Church which declares that it has power from God through the ministration of these same Sacraments, also declares that it has authority to pronounce matters of faith and morals which the dissenters insist are erroneous.

On the face of it, this is inconsistent. How can the Church be wrong about one area of faith and morals, and be right about another? Thus, a dissenter implicitly sets a standard over that of the Church. Let’s examine one case, that of the Immaculate Conception, to see the implications of dissent.

The Immaculate Conception is a dogma which was declared ex cathedra by Pope Pius IX, exercising papal infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council. Let’s say that the dissenter rejects this dogma. It would necessitate that papal infallibility would also be rejected. Moreover, Vatican I would necessarily have to be rejected as well, since it declared papal infallibility. So, the dissenter would be in terms of belief an Old Catholic. Unfortunately, it doesn’t not end here.

Let’s say that the Council was wrong. That would entail that not all Councils are infallible, which means that either some are fallible, and some are infallible, or that all Councils are fallible. If we take the former, more conservative position, then we need some sort of standard by which to discern a “good” from a “bad” Council. In the more radical position, we need a standard by which to separate the bad from the good doctrines.

The former position is similar to the Orthodox; they generally accept the first seven Councils, because they were before the Great Schism of 1054. The latter position is Protestant, supposing that the Scriptures make up that hypothetical standard. Whatever the position, it denies that the Catholic Church has the infallible power to teach faith and morals to the faithful, a power which is supposed to have been granted by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

So, in the case of denying this one dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the dissenter becomes at best, an Old Catholic, but, if he is consistent, he would be for all practical purposes an Orthodox or Protestant. Whatever he would become, it would most definitely not be Catholic.

In conclusion, all of us must be careful to heed the words of St. Thomas Aquinas: “Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.”

God bless,

The Augustinian

 

[Lorarose]

It is especially frustrating when priests and bishops treat the faith this way.
I know a newly ordained priest who:

rejects Mary’s perpetual virginity
denies unbroken papal succession
denies church teaching on purgatory and indulgences
denies church teaching on birth control and in-vitro

I really don’t understand why he bothered training to become a priest. He is really more a lutheran or episcopalean than he is a catholic.
But he is a product of his diocese and his bishop - he is not rare by a long shot.

Do these non-catholic catholics really believe they are going to change ancient doctrine?
Do they think they’ll get one of their “own” into the papacy?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Dear Augustinian,

I may be just such an individual, so for the purposes of this thread, without objection, I will take your question personally. I appreciate your well worded post which addresses your concerns without resorting to name-calling and assumptions about my motives. I may not be representative of the majority of “cafeteria” Catholics because I don’t see many of them going to much effort to find the truth.

I went to Catholic gradeschool for 8 years. Most of my teachers were nuns, and several of them were very poor teachers who were very impatient with so-called “gifted” children who questioned things – not out of disrespect but an honest yearning for knowledge. Years later, when I was on haitus from the Church (and couldn’t care less about it) I started hanging around some girls who were avid Christians in a (non-Catholic) charismatic group. My innocent questions about their beliefs were met with the admonition, “you must quit trying to figure it out and just believe it.” I have had training in mathematics, logic, and engineering, and ask that things I am supposed to believe at least make sense, even if not proven. It seemed they had no clue about their beliefs, other than that they were told to believe it.

More years later, I started watching a TV preacher (Fred Price) and listened to his sermons on what faith is. He impressed me so much that I bought a Bible and eventually came back to Church. In Church I thought that I knew better than those around me. I was brought down almost immediately by an epistle which said something like “those who think they know more than others really don’t know as they ought to know” and that I should not question them because how do I know that what they do, they do not do in faith?

Therefore from that day on I was very careful to keep an open mind, and give everyone else’s beliefs the benefit of the doubt. I became very active in our parish leadership, and worked on stewardship, parish council, and other organizations. I did my best to be obedient and compliant with spoken and written policy and found that the lay people and even religious who run the church on a day-to-day basis don’t adhere to their own claims. Some of their practices were very detrimental and divisive, and I watched in horror as some of the worst, most damaging practices filtered their way up the chain of command and eventually became supported by the bishop! As time went on, I started very carefully asking questions such as, “should we change what we do or admit that we no longer follow the policy,” to find that the very people who paid for me to go to policy training and didn’t know it themselves, excoriated me for even raising the question! I found the hypocracy to be unbearable and eventually went “crazy” over my attempts to deal with all this and remain true to myself. At the orders of my psychiatrist, I quit all involvement with the parish except as church organist.

A few months ago I told a priest who knew me well for many years, that I finally have such issues with the Church herself – and not just with individuals running it – that I was going to quit going to Communion. I also asked him if disagreeing with Church teachings was heretical and if I quit the Church would I still be a heretic? He told me yes, and that quitting the Church would not remove the label. A couple weeks later I resumed Communion and told the priest that, 1) if I am a “cafeteria” Catholic, doesn’t that just put me into the mainstream, 2) at this point I am so confused that I don’t know whether Communion is the body of Christ or just a piece of bread, but I would like to continue to go. He said he considered it OK for me to continue receiving Communion.

That’s a starter on why I go to Communion despite my uncertainties. I will answer some of your other questions in separate posts, God-willing.

Alan

 

[La_Chiara]

" Whoever listens to you listens to Me. Whoever rejects you rejects Me. And whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me." --Luke 10:16

Within the Catholic Church, there are certain individuals–in fact, a large number of them–who knowingly reject certain teachings of the Church. Even though they reject some teachings, they insist on staying in the Church for whatever reason; perhaps they still believe in the Eucharist, or in the power of the Sacraments. However, this same Church which declares that it has power from God through the ministration of these same Sacraments, also declares that it has authority to pronounce matters of faith and morals which the dissenters insist are erroneous.

On the face of it, this is inconsistent. How can the Church be wrong about one area of faith and morals, and be right about another? Thus, a dissenter implicitly sets a standard over that of the Church.

Members in my family fit your description. Except the reasons they give are not the Immaculate Conception but birth control, abortion (euphemistically, referred to as “Pro-Choice”), this “ultra-conservative” Pope, the priest abuse scandal, the Church’s opposition to homosexual marriage, and similar. But they are absolutely outraged that anyone could tell them they are not Catholic and shouldn’t receive the Sacraments. No one has the right to tell them or to tell “Catholic” politicians that they should not receive the Eucharist. Only God has that right, according to their way of thinking.

My 70 year old father, who should know better, is vehemently anti-Catholic in his views (very critical of the Church, the Pope, and all things Catholic) and was married a few years ago to a Jew by a judge (ceremony was not blessed by the Catholic Church because he did not believe the Church had the right to tell him what to do). When I recently expressed my hope that he would reconcile with his Church, he blew a gasket at me and proclaimed that he is “moral” and considers himself Catholic. Having said it once, I will now avoid the subject. (Of course, I cringe when he takes Communion because he doesn’t attend Mass regularly. I have never said anything to him about Communion, because I value my life.) It is very sad for me and most of my siblings that he has gotten to this point and that our children see his poor example and his anger at the Church. I suspect he is angry at God that my mother died and that he is nearing the end of his life. All I can do is pray.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The Augustinian:

On the face of it, this is inconsistent. How can the Church be wrong about one area of faith and morals, and be right about another? Thus, a dissenter implicitly sets a standard over that of the Church. Let's examine one case, that of the Immaculate Conception, to see the implications of dissent. So, in the case of denying this one dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the dissenter becomes at best, an Old Catholic, but, if he is consistent, he would be for all practical purposes an Orthodox or Protestant. Whatever he would become, it would most definitely not be Catholic.
In conclusion, all of us must be careful to heed the words of St. Thomas Aquinas: “Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.”

God bless,

The Augustinian

Dear Augustinian,

It’s easy for the Church or anyone else to be wrong about one thing and right about another. A monkey throwing darts at a multiple-choice test is likely to get some answers right and some things wrong.

That said, I agree with you that if I believe the Church is wrong about one thing, then she is not “infallible.”

Actually, the “infallibility” doctrine is a good place to start. From an organizational standpoint, I can understand that in a top-down command chain, the person at the top should be able to set policy. On the other hand, is he “infallible” in that I can be guaranteed it is absolute truth? Sorry, I am trying hard to swallow that one but still have difficulty.

By your definition, I suspect their are very few “real” Catholics. I suspect you’d have to scour the country to get enough for one average sized diocese, if you’re lucky. Technically, I don’t disagree with you; I think that according to official Catholic teaching, a “cafeteria” Catholic is a heretic and therefore, not a Catholic at all. That’s one reason I have a problem with the Church; if one follows her logic, most of the people currently receiving Communion should not be, and what’s more I think she knows it. If the Church herself were more consistent with her own teachings, she would crack down on all these “heretics” (such as myself) and keep them from receiving Communion. Of course, that would mean the end of most parishes.

As for St. Thomas Aquinas, I have a great deal of respect for him and his work. I thank God that he is not my judge, because he evidently expects me to be in perfect conformance to the law – but isn’t that what Jesus came to free us from?

In short, I will remain honest with priests about my sincere doubts and truths. I defend the Church against unwarranted attacks from without or within, but I do not believe the Church was ever perfect in the past nor is she now. Just because I am technically a “heretic” doesn’t mean I don’t love her and won’t support and defend her. I am not against her, so I must be for her, right? I wish she would officially see it that way, but after 2000 of shades of gray, I don’t expect she will see the light during my lifetime.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Lorarose:

I really don't understand why he bothered training to become a priest. He is really more a lutheran or episcopalean than he is a catholic. But he is a product of his diocese and his bishop - he is not rare by a long shot.

Dear Lorarose,

I agree with you here. It’s one thing for someone like me to have doubts; it’s quite another thing for a priest to go against Church teachings. If I am wrong, I risk judgment. If he is wrong, and misleads “little ones” then he is in for a much harsher judgment. I am sure all priests have doubts about certain elements of their faith from time to time, but I think they had better be very careful when expressing them openly. There are many who are weak in their faith who would turn away from the Church to hear a priest disrespecting Church teachings.

Alan

 

[Riley259]

Yes, I have a brother whom I love dearly and who is a sincere and kind-hearted person. However, his emphasis is more on social justice issues, sometimes at the expense of church teachings. He attends a very liberal parish (The Paulist center in Boston which happens to be the same one that John Kerry attends) which has much less stringent standards regarding homosexual unions, abortion, and other moral issues. My brother is steadfast in his disagreement about the male-only priesthood and has expressed disappointment in our current pope. He signals that he hopes the next pope will be more liberal and open to change. He’s staunchly democratic and doesn’t believe that the abortion issue should be a litmus test in how we vote in the presidential election. He is also a very intelligent and well-read man and understands the teaching of the Church and the contradictions of his dissention with the notion of infallibility and how just changing a doctrine would blow apart the Church’s claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Then why does he hold his current positions and still remain a Catholic - the cultural milieu and the implications on his life and values that being totally obedient to the Magisterium would bring. I also believe he feels his presence and other dissenters like him will be the impetus for the Church to change. However, on issues of doctrine, faith and morals I’m afraid that he’ll have an eternity to wait.

 

[Pax]

AlanFromWichita,

Many of us have played “cafeteria catholic.” As such we operate under the impression that as individuals we somehow know better than the historical Church that was given the keys by Jesus. The best strategy is to assume that the official teachings of the Church are true, and then to study the teachings and their foundations so that we fully understand them.

My own journey was salvaged, by the grace of God, when I knew in my heart that I had to make a choice between the virtue of my own prideful thinking and the 2000 years of Christian wisdom found in the teachings of the Church. Coming to this realization is not easy, but once I was there the logical choice was pretty much a slam dunk! Since then I have also grown to see the wisdom of God’s plan, the deep beauty of scripture, and the careful execution and presentation of God’s plan through His Church.

The main thing is to raise the white flag of surrender in your heart and soul, and to put every ounce of your trust in the Lord. Our faith will be tested, but God will provide us with the grace we need if we love Him with our whole heart, mind, soul, and strength. What we give up in this process is nothing compared to what we gain.

The Church is a type of hospital for sinners. It is full of patients. Some patients are perhaps more ill than others, but we are all sinners. We cannot let the sins and problems we see with individuals (including priests and bishops) derail us in any way. We need to be converted and reborn everyday. Our walk is by faith, and the path is narrow and is not easy. We must pick up our cross daily in spite of what we might see around us. Whenever we get discouraged we should remember the words of “pray and never lose heart.”

 

[The_Augustinian]

Dear Alan,

Indeed, Jesus came to abolish us from the confines of the Law, and into His Grace. But, we are called to “be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” Certainly this is impossible for men, but “all things are possible with God.”

I think that many cafeteria Catholics are not culpable of heresy because of the lack of proper catechesis, although they may be culpable, to an extent, for their ignorance. However, the fact that there are so many Catholics who believe that way is very disturbing to me. Hopefully, we Catholics will become more orthodox in the future, with proper catechesis, an increase in orthodox priests (no more liberals!) and a renewal of the culture. I myself am optimistic.

Now, the Church does not deal with many of these Catholics in a harsh manner, because they are not public sinners. Perhaps there should be some kind of discipline, but at this point I think it is better to use the carrot rather than the stick. If every Catholic household received a copy of the Catechism, then perhaps there might be a renewal in the Church. Those who choose to partake of Communion must examine their own consciences. If I were in your position, I would err on the side of caution and refrain, lest I be wrong and become guilty of the Body and the Blood of the Lord.

In Christ,

The Augustinian

 

[The_Augustinian]

Another note on orthodoxy: I don’t think it’s very difficult at all to be orthodox. I think it is just a submission to the right judgment of the Church. Just look at the Catechism and read what the Church believes, and pray to God: “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief.” We may not understand everything the Church teaches, but if we sincerely seek understanding and believe, God will accept our belief, as imperfect as it may be.

If you can believe that Jesus Christ is God made flesh, that He was born of a Virgin, that He died and rose again in three days, and that He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, then certainly you can trust in the Church He founded, and all the comparatively minor doctrines that it teaches.

In Christ,

The Augustinian

 

[Feanaro]

To AlanFromWichita,

First of all, I would like to say that I will pray for you and any doupts you might have. I would also like to say that there is a difference between a person who is struggling with something and a person who outright knowingly rejects a defined truth. The former is a human being, the latter is a heretic.

As for infallability…Papal infallability only applies when the Pope is speaking Ex Cathedra, and even then, only on matters of faith and morals. Therefore, if the Pope expresses an opinion on something that has nothing to do with the faith or morals of the Church, he can be wrong yet still remain infallible.

There are many problems with the Church today, especially here in north America. 1) People are poorly educated in the faith. 2) Priests like Lorarose described are not being weeded out. 3) People in north America have an entitlement and pride issue. In other words they want to be called Catholic when it suits them, but they do not want to feel like they have to submit to any authority greater than themselves. These are just a few problems that we face today. However, the Church has always faced problems and always will because it’s members are sinners and always will be. This does not change the fact that it was established by Christ and it’s Authority comes from him.

 

[petra]

Catholicism is very complex. I have been a Catholic for over 2 years now and I feel like I am still just scratching the surface. When I first converted from Evangelical Protestantism, everything seemed so simple. I agreed with everything in the Apostles Creed and the sacraments, including the Real Presence. I believe the relevant doctrines about Mary, purgatory, and understand and appreciate the communion of saints. I became persuaded that a Christian can lose his or her salvation. (This was a difficult issue, having previously been a staunch Calvinist.)

Perhaps I was not properly instructed—I did not go through RCIA. I read lots of books, including Fundamentals of the Faith, by Peter Kreeft and was instructed privately by my priest. My priest said that if I believe everything in that book, I believe the essentials of Catholicism and could become Catholic. I did, and desired the Eucharist, so I converted.

Since then, I’ve discovered a bundle of other “essentials” that Catholics are required to believe. And I’ve discovered that to reject any of these is to damn oneself. I’m not sure if I could have converted if I had known about some of these, and I’m currently working these issues out.

I do not have a problem with any of the moral doctrines, so my disagreement is not motivated by a desire to sin. My issues are doctrinal and theological. I agree that works are a necessary partner to faith and we must persevere ultimately be saved. I agree that the commission of a grave matter separates us from God severely so as to jeopardize our salvation. But I find myself at odds with the Church with regard to how easy is it to lose salvation. I also see an emphasis on works that goes beyond cooperating with God’s grace and becomes works that intend to earn salvation. I am also trying to understand papal infallibility.

I am basically a very compliant person. I tend to be submissive, and it is easier for me to follow than lead. My compliance is most manifest in my submission to Jesus. The Holy Spirit is leading me on this journey and I cannot contradict what I perceive to be His impressions upon my conscience. We are also told in scripture to test all things. Is testing the same thing as dissention?

It is dangerous to blindly believe things just because we are told it is so. What is ironic is cult members in groups such as Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses are also told not to question authority. Yet we hope they do, so that a seed of truth could take root and lead them to true Christiantiy. On the other hand, what fear has Truth? Truth will withstand any degree of testing? If every detail of Catholicism is true, how is it threatened by the sincere testing of doctrine?

Yet Catholicism seems as if it is threatened by the slightest degree of dissention. Anyone who questions Catholic doctrine seems to be attributed with pride and protest. It is also implied that Protestants are much better off than someone who has become Catholic and then questions things.Unity of Christ’s Church is God’s will. I pray for the healing of the schisms of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. But unity that is achieve through pejoratives and threats is a false unity.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

The problem is that Catholics see Protestant churches changing their “doctrines” all the time. Many Catholics are under the impression that Vatican II actually changed Church doctrines which had previously been held as unchangable. So these “free-thinking” Catholics are just waiting around for the Church to catch up with the secular world and the Protestant churches and change some more of their out-dated doctrines. Somehow people have it in their skulls that if the Pope wanted to he could just allow female priests (priestesses I guess) or contraception or whatever other thing they think the Pope ought to institute.

If people realized that the Church is not going to change on their per issues…then they would probably join Protestant churches.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

petra:

It is dangerous to blindly believe things just because we are told it is so. What is ironic is cult members in groups such as Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses are also told not to question authority. Yet we hope they do, so that a seed of truth could take root and lead them to true Christiantiy. On the other hand, what fear has Truth? Truth will withstand any degree of testing? If every detail of Catholicism is true, how is it threatened by the sincere testing of doctrine?

.

Could you be more specific about what things you have to believe that seem wrong to you? Truth can withstand any degree of testing as you say, but there are many who blindly follow anyone with a slick tongue…enter the Mormons and the JWs. Not everyone has the desire or the ability to test everything in the light of Truth.

 

[petra]

Tom of Assisi:

Could you be more specific about what things you have to believe that seem wrong to you?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but a Catholic is supposed to agree to every minute detail of doctrine, morals, and canon law. We are supposed to submit completely to the Magisterium even on issues we do not fully understand. It is my understanding that to disagree with any point is to be a heretic. Certainly some issues are of greater significance than others. It is more important to embrace the teaching of Christ’s divinity than it is to agree that the consecrated host must contain wheat. But the Church doesn’t seem to differentiate the weight of importance on issues. To disagree with anything is to be a schismatic or a heretic.

The more I learn about Catholicism, the more rules I see! It seems that the Catholic Church has replaced the Mosaic Law with its own version—a bigger, more complicated version. When does cooperation with God’s grace become the kind of works that the Apostle Paul condemned in Galatians? This is a huge question. While our faith must have works as a partner, works of the law are of no value for sanctification. In fact Galatians 3:10 says that, “For all who depend on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law.” The purpose of the Mosaic Law was to show people that they couldn’t live up to it and were in need of a Savior. With Christ’s wonderful atonement we now have the option to be justified based on His work, not ours. He ransomed us from the curse of the law by having the curse placed on Him instead. Those that respond to His invitation can become His adopted children. I believe that we need to cooperate with the Holy Spirit and become more and more sensitive to His leading. We need to allow Him to form our conscience. I also believe that there are sins that are so severe that it would terminate our relationship with Him—I agree with the concept of mortal sin.

But as spiritual children we are going to make mistakes and fall short. I don’t believe that Christians move in and out of salvation on a weekly basis. Yet, there are things that the Catholic Church defines as grave matters that would create precisely this scenario. I’ve written about this in another discussion post, but the fact that missing Mass without an approved reason is considered to be a mortal sin is very disturbing to me. Don’t get me wrong. I love Mass and I think it is a sin to neglect going. But a mortal sin? People have tried to explain it to me, and my conscience keeps telling me this is legalism. Elevating venial sins to mortal status is to bring the curse of the law upon people and nullify grace.

I am so saddened by many people on this board that are paralyzed with scrupulosity and fear. Jesus set us free from that! True, OCD may make this more apparent, but legalism is the root. To the extent that Catholicism is legalistic, it is in error. [Am I a heretic for saying that?] I believe the sacraments are God’s gifts to help us. As long as I see them in this positive light, I can stay Catholic. But when they start to look like works of the law or hoops to jump through, I really start to wonder if I’m in the right place. I hear some Catholics say they would rather err on the side of scrupulosity, but that seems to be the more dangerous side to err on. Galatians 5: 4 says, “You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by the law; you have fallen from grace.” May we not fall from grace!

Anyway, hopefully this is somewhat of a lucid answer to your question, Tom. My brain is a little foggy from a head cold and antihistamine!

 

[The_Augustinian]

Be careful, Petra, the Catholic Church is your Mother, and a good mother always sets down rules. And she has that perogative, being founded by Our Lord to “bind and loose”.

We are not legalistic. Certainly there are many rules and regulations, but these rules are important. Yes, missing Mass is a mortal sin. It has been regarded as a sin since the time of Christ, most likely.

You want to get legalistic? The Church used to not have repeated penance. So, if you committed grave sin after baptism, you didn’t have much of a choice.

The Church doesn’t tell you what to wear, just to generally be modest in dress. It doesn’t tell you what to eat, but just to abstain from certain foods and fast during appointed times. It lets you be free to pursue nearly any occupation. It allows you to smoke, to dance, and to drink, unlike some Protestant denominations who proscribe such activities. The Catholic Church is vibrant: look at Catholics! Chesterton, Belloc, Tolkien, Mozart, Verdi, Mother Theresa, and I could go on and on. Were they worried about following all those rules? No, they were fired from within for the love of God.

You seeing the Church as a legalistic organization bothers me. Do you have scrupulosity issues? Don’t worry about all the rules. Just follow the two greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart…and love your neighbor as yourself.” On this is based all the “rules and regulations” of the Church. So, whenever you look at a precept of the Church, then ponder on the principle behind that precept.

 

[Joan_M]

I used to be a “Cafeteria Catholic.” I am a cradle Catholic, and was pretty well educated in Catholicism. I learned Apologetics and Church History as well as Catechism, and everything else the Sisters of Mercy taught me. But, when I became an adult, I made up my own mind about some things, thinking I knew better than the Pope and the Church. That is what being a Cafeteria Catholic is - being proud and arrogant.

I disagreed with the Church about contraception and sterilization and about a male only priesthood. I was somewhat ambivalent about abortion - acknowledging it to be killing a baby, but believing that in some circumstances I might want to have one. And, after all, if I did something, well, it just wouldn’t be the same as if someone else did it.

The Lord let me go on my merry way for many years, but finally got tired of my foolishness. He let me know in no uncertain way where I was headed for!! I had a dream one night. In that dream I died and my soul was on it’s way for judgement. I was aware, without seeing, of the presence of Jesus close by, and I knew that as soon as I saw Him, I would be judged. And, I was intensely aware of what that judgement was going to be. At that point in the dream I woke up, shivering, in a cold sweat. I knew I had been bound for Hell.

The dream recurred - not every night, or even every week - for some time, since I was stupid enough not to realize that this was a direct message from the Lord.

Eventually, however, I went to confession. I had no conscious intention of confessing the sins that I had not previously confessed because I had persuaded myself that they were not sins. But, the moment I opened my mouth I found myself telling the priest that there were many things I had done that I had never confessed. He suggested that I make the confession a general confession, which I did, and I unloaded everything I could remember. I will never forget the look of joy on the face of the priest. I believe that Jesus had the same look on His face! “There is more joy in Heaven over one sinner who repents …”

Well, first of all, I never had that dream again!! And, I found that I had absolutely no difficulty in believing ALL of the Church’s teachings. Every single one of them. The Grace of God is wonderful! I’m just sorry that I took so long to cooperate with it.

I am glad, though, that I experienced the total terror of that dream. I believe it will help to keep me on the straight and narrow path!

Being a Cafeteria Catholic is not being a Catholic at all!

 

[petra]

The Augustinian:

The Church used to not have repeated penance. So, if you committed grave sin after baptism, you didn’t have much of a choice.

What does this mean? That the Church didn’t allow forgiveness of mortal sins after baptism? What was the time period that this was in effect?

 

[fix]

petra:

Please correct me if I am wrong, but a Catholic is supposed to agree to every minute detail of doctrine, morals, and canon law. But the Church doesn’t seem to differentiate the weight of importance on issues. To disagree with anything is to be a schismatic or a heretic.

Actually it does differentiate. Your entire post mischaracterizes Christ’s Church. We are not to be minimalists and do the least amount needed, that is not Christian. We are not to follow the law for the law’s sake. We are to love the law because it is given to us by Christ.

Legalism is a false charge. Let me ask you this. When I drive home each night and stiop at all the stop signs, do not run over anyone, do not rob anyone am I being legalistic? No. I am being a good citizen. Keeping the Church laws are being a good Christian.

 

[petra]

fix:

Actually it does differentiate. Your entire post mischaracterizes Christ’s Church. We are not to be minimalists and do the least amount needed, that is not Christian. We are not to follow the law for the law’s sake. We are to love the law because it is given to us by Christ.

Legalism is a false charge. Let me ask you this. When I drive home each night and stiop at all the stop signs, do not run over anyone, do not rob anyone am I being legalistic? No. I am being a good citizen. Keeping the Church laws are being a good Christian.

It is not my intention to mischaracterize anything, only to become better informed about my faith. I invite correction, as I indicated in my previous post. So if I understand you correctly, there are some issues that are not as serious to disagree about than others. If that is what you are saying, then I agree!

I’m trying to learn what the difference is between cooperating with God’s grace and performing the works of the law with the intent to be justified. Cooperating with God’s grace includes being a good Christian, and we are in complete agreement with that. But performing works with the intent of earning salvation (or in the case of the Galatians, earning final salvation) is a mortal sin. (Gal. 5:4.) Two people could perform the same act, one with the former motive and one with the latter motive. The spiritual consequences are as far apart as can be: sanctification and falling from grace. Legalism is the latter.