The Perils of Dissent

[twf]

*This is a great example about what drives me crazy and why I have a problem with perfect infallability! Issues seem to be put in the discipline, practice, faith, or morals categories solely at the convenience of maintaining this “proof” of infallibility.

Does God change his mind about what sin is? No way.

Can the Church just invent sins? Apparently it can. It can invent sins and then hold members responsible under threat of damnation.

Wouldn’t you expect that the definitions of what sin is or isn’t fall in the category of faith and morals? -----and even more so if the sin is grave and results in damnation! How can it be said otherwise? This is an issue of faith and morals, and the Church has changed its position.

Augustinian shared previously that centuries ago, the Church simply would not forgive certain serious sins. Even if such sinners were truly repentant, if they happened to live during that unfortunate time, they were sentenced to Hell. Now, the Church indicates that any sin may be forgiven except for the sin of unrepentance. Again, how could it possibly be said that this is not an issue of faith and morals? It clearly is, and the Church has changed.

Just to remind you all, I believe the Church is sufficiently infallible—that upon Christ’s return, the Church will be intact, its teachings will be pretty close to perfect, and the world will have had the chance to be saved. But history does not bear out the idea that the Church is perfectly infallible.

-petra*

Hi. Sorry it’s taken me so long to respond. No, there are only two categories that are relevant to the matter of infallibility: faith and morals (which is a single category, not to be separated) and discipline. The Church does not conveniently drop matters into one of these two categories to cover her tracks and foster a façade of infallibility…no, that is not how it works at all. The Church knows what are disciplines and what are doctrines. Doctrines are those teachings that have been passed on to us form the very beginning, by Christ apostles that can NEVER be changed by any council or pope. These doctrines can be furthered developed as the Spirit guides the Church through councils and through Christ’s vicars, but in their essence, the deposit of faith must remain the same from the apostolic era through to the Last Day. Disciplines are any practice, procedure or structure that the Church imposes beyond the Deposit of Faith at a later date for the practical good of the Church (ideally, but like I said, this is not a matter of doctrine, and not guaranteed by infallibility). The Church can not invent sins. Eating abstaining from meat on Friday was a discipline, not a doctrine, because it is not and never was part of the deposit of faith (the Church added it at some far later point); however, it was a sin to eat meat on Friday because the deposit of faith tells us that the Church has the power to bind and to loose…thus, Christ gave the Church the power to impose disciplines, so then the sin is disobeying the binding power of the Church, not the act of eating meat in and of itself. If eating meat of Fridays was in itself sinful, that could never change…but the sin was defying the divine authority of Christ’s Church. So the sin has not changed, it’s just that disobeying the Church now takes different forms. (I should point out that we are, as Catholics, still expected to perform some sort of penance on Fridays, the day of our Lord’s crucifixion, so that the Church can be united in her sufferings at set times, but this is completely up to our discretion now, the form of the penance, that is).

 

[twf]

As for the other issue, I know nothing of that situation directly, however Christ gave the Church the following power in John 20:
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit:
23 whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Christ gave his apostles the power to retain sin as well as forgive it. If this ever was a universal rule in the 2nd century (not absolving adultery and murder after the first offence) it is not a matter of faith and morals because the Church never said that those sins could not be forgiven…she simply refused to forgive them. Do you see the difference? If this actually happened, I would readily agree that she was wrong to withhold absolution, but she had the right to do such, as a discipline. If the Church said that it was not possible to forgive such sins, then that would be a matter of faith and morals, but if she acknowledges that it is possible (which it is) to forgive those sins, but simply refuses to do so, that is not a doctrine, but simply a lack of action on her part.

I hope this cleared things up a bit for you. Please don’t hesitate to challenge me on any point.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Is the Church guaranteed to be infallibile in the use of the power to bind and loose?

If not, then why would Jesus allow people to bound to a discipline that could be in error? (Not that I question any particular discipline. I don’t consider them unreasonable.)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Greg_McPherran:

Is the Church guaranteed to be infallibile in the use of the power to bind and loose?

If not, then why would Jesus allow people to bound to a discipline that could be in error? (Not that I question any particular discipline. I don’t consider them unreasonable.)

Greg,

That sounds like a great question, and it challenges my personal problem with “infallibility.”

Shooting from the hip as I often do, I can understand that Jesus would want somebody to be in charge of carrying on His teaching, fallible or not. If he did not have faith in mortal men to carry on His teaching, maybe He would have had to stick around personally to see that it got done right.

Considering the extent to which Jesus forgave, the only reason I can think of He would want something bound would be if it were necessary to preserve order. If a person were wrongfully martyred, such as St. Joan of Arc, then Joan is still a saint, and the Church survived. Ouch, but we got over it. One mistake doesn’t mean the whole institution comes crashing down.

Or did I miss your point entirely?

Alan

 

[trogiah]

AlanFromWichita:

Thank you.

When the Church decides to hold a sinner bound, is it doing Christ’s work to argue on the sinner’s behalf? What about Moses who got God to change his mind about punishing people? What about the example Jim alluded to where Jesus interfered with the people of the Church carrying out its own orders?

When the Church excommunicates people, refuses them Communion, or otherwise condemns them, I can either stay out of it because it’s not my business (but it is if we are all one body), defend the Church, or I can come to the aid of the sinner. On judgment day I’ll have to answer for it, but I personally think my chances are better if I showed empathy for the condemned, visited the prisoner, etc. than if I were on the team that refused to grant mercy – either individually or systematically. We are not talking about preserving order here, or protecting the sacrament of the Eucharist. The Eucharist doesn’t need protection.

Alan

For the sake of discussion, I thought I would take a closer look at the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman. (John chapter 8)

As presented in the gospel, Jesus did not really seem to be jumping to the aid of the woman who apparently was about to be stoned. Some authorities, probably in an effort to give Jesus a difficult situation to deal with, approached him with the woman and her crime. At first it almost seems like he is trying to “mind his own business” (The drawing on the ground thing is a little puzzling.) When he finally gives an opinion, he basically says, “stone her” with, of course, the qualification that the first one to throw the stone should be the one who has never broken a single commandment. (Somehow it seems like Jesus took all three of the approaches you suggested were possible. He minded his own business, defended the law, and still managed to save the woman from being stoned.)

From one point of view, I think the people he saved were the ones who were carrying stones around. He showed that we don’t have to condemn, hate, or throw stones, even at a very grievious sinner.

Bringing this back to the issue of dissent, I have to ask - Am I dissenting if I do not condemn a person whom church law apparently does?  Is it ok to keep company a person who has voted to keep abortions legal, or helped provide one, or actually had one.  Is it ok to eat and drink with a  person who is divorced and remarried.  Jesus's example suggests to me that such actions are appropriate.

Adultery, abortion, many other harmful actions are to be avoided. Like most sins they often cause as much or more pain to those who committ them than to anyone else. It is good and right for the Church to say we should avoid sins. But what should we do about others who apparently fail to avoid serious sin? I guess that is the question we must deal with.

At this point it seems Jesus’s example on that question is more clear in some situations than in others.

Just in case someone is interested in further reading. I had forgotten how much Paul talked about sin and the Law in his Letter to the Romans. Some of that letter seems related to a great deal of this thread.

Peace
-Jim

 

[MiddleBear]

Many time confusion arises from ambiguous termonology. I highly recommen that all pick up and use the Modern Catholic Dictionary by Father John A. Hardon. S.J.

Father Hardon was an advisor to Pope Paul VI and wrote a Catechism for Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta and he also ministered and interacted with many protestant groups and individuals.
An example definition as applied to this thread is provided as follows:

Doctrinal Dissent
The theory that a professed Catholic may legitimately disagree with an official teaching of the Catholic Church and in fact should disagree in order to advance the Church’s interest. It is based upon one of several erroneous premises, e.g., Modernism, which denies that divine faith is an assent of the mind to God’s revealed truth, or process theology, which postulates an evolving deity and therefore also an ever changing truth. Most often the dissent applies to some doctrine of Christian morals which, though infallibly true, because taught by the Church’s universal ordinary magisterium, has not been solemnly defined.

Modern Catholic Dictionary John A. Hardon S.J.

I have also noticed that many time dissent is a result of poor (wrong, ambiguious) catecesis. Thus use reliable sources Catechisim of the Catholic Church English 2nd edition, writings of Pope John Paul II, (and other Popes too)

God Bless You

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Greg_McPherran,

If not, then why would Jesus allow people to bound to a discipline that could be in error?

The Church has condemned the proposition that ecclesiastical disciplines established by the Church can be “useless and burdensome … dangerous and harmful.” Disciplines are not immutable, therefore not infallible in that sense. They are said to be infallible in a negative and indirect sense, however.

Pope Pius VI’s condemnation reads as follows:

The prescription of the synod [of Pistoia] … it adds, “in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstituion and materialism”; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerouns and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

(Pius VI, cited in Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy F. Deferari from the 13th ed. Of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, Loreto Publications, 2nd printing, 2004, pg. 393)]

I also refer you to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article entitled “Ecclesiastical Discipline”, under the heading “DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY”.
newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

Here’s an excerpt…

Disciplinary Infallibility] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.

to be continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued …

And from P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:

“The Church is** infallible in her general discipline**. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .

“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”

See more here:

Are Ecclesiastical Disciplines Infallible?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4136&highlight=ecclesiastical+disciplines+harmful+dangerous

 

[AlanFromWichita]

trogiah:

As presented in the gospel, Jesus did not really seem to be jumping to the aid of the woman who apparently was about to be stoned. Some authorities, probably in an effort to give Jesus a difficult situation to deal with, approached him with the woman and her crime. At first it almost seems like he is trying to “mind his own business” (The drawing on the ground thing is a little puzzling.) When he finally gives an opinion, he basically says, “stone her” with, of course, the qualification that the first one to throw the stone should be the one who has never broken a single commandment. (Somehow it seems like Jesus took all three of the approaches you suggested were possible. He minded his own business, defended the law, and still managed to save the woman from being stoned.)

Dear Jim,

I love your insight here. Jesus knew what the rules were, but transcended the legalistic interpretation of the law by looking toward the greater good of love and mercy, and He had the faith that showed he didn’t immediately have to intercede.

This took some “outside of the box” thinking. Perhaps this is what I’m after when I argue with Church teachings, or at least arguments therefore. I see so many people judged and condemned, due to legalistic application of doctrine.

From one point of view, I think the people he saved were the ones who were carrying stones around. He showed that we don’t have to condemn, hate, or throw stones, even at a very grievious sinner.

Another great point! :clapping:

Bringing this back to the issue of dissent, I have to ask - Am I dissenting if I do not condemn a person whom church law apparently does? Is it ok to keep company a person who has voted to keep abortions legal, or helped provide one, or actually had one. Is it ok to eat and drink with a person who is divorced and remarried. Jesus’s example suggests to me that such actions are appropriate.

Adultery, abortion, many other harmful actions are to be avoided. Like most sins they often cause as much or more pain to those who committ them than to anyone else. It is good and right for the Church to say we should avoid sins. But what should we do about others who apparently fail to avoid serious sin? I guess that is the question we must deal with.

Alan

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Dave,

“If she [the Church] were able to…tolerate in her discipline…something which tended to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”

What about the toleration of dissent? Certainly, this is harmful to the faithful.

Is there nothing in Church law relates to enforcement of teachings?

Greg

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Dave, re previous post.

What I am saying is that if we lack a discipline that relates to enforcement of teachings and disciplines (especially by clergy and teachers), then it would seem we may have indeed failed to protect the faithful (by omitting an important discipline/prohibition).

Greg

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Greg_McPherran:

Dave, re previous post.

What I am saying is that if we lack a discipline that relates to enforcement of teachings and disciplines (especially by clergy and teachers), then it would seem we may have indeed failed to protect the faithful (by omitting an important discipline/prohibition).

Greg

Dear Greg,

You bring up a good point. Actually, in our diocese they are just starting to implement a policy whereby teachers and presenters of any programs using Catholic facilities (I’m not sure about clergy) have to sign a pledge that whatever they teach will be in alignment with Church teachings. This may not preclude private opinions outside of their sessions or internal discussions, but I haven’t seen the paperwork yet so I don’t know.

Even though I have my own dissenting opinions, I can certainly understand the Church’s need for anything taught in her name to agree with her teachings. That said, I believe it is intrinsically healthy for members, nonmembers, and even teachers and clergy to challenge each other and the Church herself – on their own authority and not that of the Church. If they are wrong, then this will lead to correction. Right (even though some don’t believe it possible) and the Church may actually learn something. After all, Jesus wasn’t born at the top of the political or religious heirarchy, so why can’t God teach truths through little ones of low social status, that He has hidden from the wise and learned?

Alan

 

[itsjustdave1988]

a discipline that relates to enforcement of teachings

What do you mean? One cannot “enforce” a teaching. One can merely teach it. If someone chooses to reject a teaching, for example, can we burn them at the stake? I hope those days are over.

However, if you mean how do we enforce that those who hold specific offices within the Church do not act or teach contrarily to the teachings of the Church, I believe canon law has provisions for enforcement already (e.g. censures).

Perhaps a concrete example might clarify what you are talking about.

If you think something is not being done in your parish in accord with higher authority, I suggest you follow the following protocol:
cuf.org/protocol.htm or something similar to it in accord with Lumen Gentium and the Code of Canon Law.

If it’s merely that you are appalled that people don’t agree with the Church, I am equally appalled. Yet, God gave us free will to choose rightly or to choose wrongly. Our role is to proclaim the good news and teach the apostolic deposit of faith. We cannot make them agree with it. God surely gives his antecedent grace in such a way that it strengthens the will and enlightens the intellect, but even the grace of God is not irresistible.

 

[sherilo]

Hi,

I read your post and the subsequent replies with great interest, as I am seriously considering attending Mass. I was baptized Catholic, but raised Protestant, and grew up with all the misgivings about Catholicism that a Protestant usually holds. Through my own research and study, I have come to see that most of what I thought was wrong in the church indeed is proven to be scripturally sound. However, I have still have Marian issues. While I now recognize her to be blessed and that she deserves more recognition and acknowledgement than Protestants give her, I cannot exalt her as the Catholic church does. Actually, it almost seems like someone elevated her to exalted status centuries ago out of a need for someone else to worship other than God and Jesus, and the church has spent the last millenia or two attempting to justify the position she was placed in. I do see Scripture with regard to her specialness and virgin pregnancy, and I do hold her in high esteem with regard to her relationship to Jesus. However, I can’t exalt her to the degree that the church does, I don’t want to go through her to get to God, and I don’t see why the church talks about her more than the Scripture does. I have even read non-scripture writings, and can find no direct reference which elevates her to the status that she holds today. The problem is that since I have been researching and studying the Catholic faith on my own, and have been listening to Catholic radio stations including Mass, I find that the Catholic church worships God and Jesus more fully than any other church that I have attended. It is where I want to be. However, I almost feel afraid to go to Mass because I feel like I will be harboring a secret in my heart as my feeling about Mary is not what everyone else’s seems to be. I certainly don’t want to be in dissent. I don’t even think that I will be able to go through the instruction, thus never able to take Communion, etc. I have posted about this before, but apparently, my issues with Mary are not to be resolved so easily. My next step will be to talk with a priest, I guess.

Sherilo

 

[AlanFromWichita]

sherilo:

However, I almost feel afraid to go to Mass because I feel like I will be harboring a secret in my heart as my feeling about Mary is not what everyone else’s seems to be. I certainly don’t want to be in dissent. I don’t even think that I will be able to go through the instruction, thus never able to take Communion, etc. I have posted about this before, but apparently, my issues with Mary are not to be resolved so easily. My next step will be to talk with a priest, I guess.

Sherilo

It’s not such a secret that many Catholics secretly have opinions that are “not like everyone else’s.” There are also many ways to show your faith and devotion; some go to daily Mass, some to adoration, some say rosaries, some do contemplative prayer, some the Liturgy of the Hours, some keep a high level of time and talent stewardship. Usually you hear of “cafeteria Catholic” as one who dissents from certain readings, but I submit that “devout” Catholics would agree that there is a veritable smorgasbord of ways to show devotion, more than one person can ever do. Not all Catholics say a daily rosary, but some do. There’s no requirement to do so.

Come on in. The water is nice.

Alan

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sherilo,

I recommend a little book by a Protestant Pastor called A Protestant Pastor Looks at Mary by Rev. Charles Dickson. Perhaps your concerns about Mary will be alleviated through catechesis. We all have to take baby steps, but the more I study Catholic theology, its orthodoxy becomes evident, even if I have made this discovery slowly.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Dave,

itsjustdave1988:

What do you mean?

The Church teaches something like indirect infallibility for matters of practice and discipline. What I am saying is that this means little if there is no infallibility in actual behavior (e.g. dissent etc.). Do you see what I mean? Isn’t it sort of a false promise?

Greg

 

[itsjustdave1988]

No, I don’t see what you mean.

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

It’s not such a secret that many Catholics secretly have opinions that are “not like everyone else’s.” There are also many ways to show your faith and devotion; some go to daily Mass, some to adoration, some say rosaries, some do contemplative prayer, some the Liturgy of the Hours, some keep a high level of time and talent stewardship. Usually you hear of “cafeteria Catholic” as one who dissents from certain readings, but I submit that “devout” Catholics would agree that there is a veritable smorgasbord of ways to show devotion, more than one person can ever do. Not all Catholics say a daily rosary, but some do. There’s no requirement to do so.

Come on in. The water is nice.

Alan

Alan,

You know that the term cafeteria Catholic refers to those who reject the faith and only accept some of Christ’s teachings. Practicing one devotion as to opposed to another is not a cafeteria.

 

[fix]

Greg_McPherran:

Hi Dave,

The Church teaches something like indirect infallibility for matters of practice and discipline. What I am saying is that this means little if there is no infallibility in actual behavior (e.g. dissent etc.). Do you see what I mean? Isn’t it sort of a false promise?

Greg

Are you trying to say that the Vatican favors collegiality over removing bishops and priests who teach error? Because if you are that is not an argument that the Church is fallible in Her teaching authority. It is an argument that the Pope has made a prudential judgment in how he wants to administer the Church.

I think the Pope should remove dissenting bishops because they can lead the faithful into error, but that is not my authority. That does not mean I do not wonder and get upset at times. It does not mean I question the infallibility of the magisterium, it means I question the prudential judgments of Christ’s annointed apostolic successors on issues of Church administration.