The Perils of Dissent

[jordan]

petra:

In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul is recounting a confrontation he had with Peter, who was at that time, Pope. Paul “opposed him to his face because he was clearly wrong.” Peter had begun disassociating himself with the Gentiles in fear of what the Jews would think of him. Peter’s actions caused others to be misguided and carried away with the hypocrisy. Paul said, "But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of all, ‘If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’ "

What I find interesting is that Paul’s dissent was directed at the Pope, it was confrontational, and it was public. I also find it interesting that the Pope was “not on the right road in line with the gospel.” I’m anticipating that people may say that Peter did not err in doctrine but merely lacked personal impeccability. But it seems to me that that would be splitting hairs. Regardless of whether he said something ex cathedra or not, his actions had the effect of misguiding people on something as central as the gospel. It took the dissent of Paul to get Peter back on track.

Petra, here’s an excerpt from the CA library on the topic of Papal Infallibility:

As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:15–16). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.

AlanFromWichita:

I simply cannot buy that any human being or group thereof are the sole, infallible voices of God. We are told that it would cause problems if we each had our own conscience. We are told that we can’t really be sure of anything unless we’ve first checked it out to see that it agrees with Church teachings and tradition. To this I ask, why did Jesus give us the Holy Spirit?

Alan, here’s what our Church teaches about conscience:

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

and:

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.

If you don’t accept the Church’s authority, you have set yourself up in the place of the apostolic authority given us by Our Lord himself. It’s obvious that the Church doesn’t tell us “it would cause problems if we each had our own conscience.” It does, however, have an obligation to help us form our consciences.

jordan

 

[jeffreedy789]

hey alan! you said ‘Rich Mullins, the late Christian singer, took extensive training in Catholicism and died the very weekend he was to receive his first Communion.’

are you sure about that? i heard that he was ‘making some kind of decision’ regarding the RCC, but i never knew what it was. the CCM world is kinda hush on the subject. he was gonna take first communion? how do you know that? (i’m not challenging you, i’m asking. i hope it’s true. he was one of the two biggest external reasons i became catholic!)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

jeffreedy789:

hey alan! you said ‘Rich Mullins, the late Christian singer, took extensive training in Catholicism and died the very weekend he was to receive his first Communion.’

are you sure about that? i heard that he was ‘making some kind of decision’ regarding the RCC, but i never knew what it was. the CCM world is kinda hush on the subject. he was gonna take first communion? how do you know that? (i’m not challenging you, i’m asking. i hope it’s true. he was one of the two biggest external reasons i became catholic!)

Yes, I’m quite sure. Rich frequently held discussions with Father Matt McGuinness, who used to be an associate pastor at my parish and now runs the Newman Center at the Wichita State University campus. Rich died on the way from Rockford, IL to Wichita KS, to play a benefit concert here. Shortly after his death, Fr. McGuinness revealed that Rich was to have received his first communion that weekend.

I knew Rich was fascinated with Catholicism, as he frequently mentioned it in his talks between songs. My wife was one of many who were lobbying him to become Catholic. Before we went to see him in Emporia, KS, my wife showed me a new t-shirt with the “top 10 reasons to remain Roman Catholic” and told me I was going to wear it for Rich. You can imagine how I felt at a roomful of mostly Protestants. Anyway, Rich did read the whole t-shirt and chuckled at it. At the same concert, a friend of ours who also attended the concert asked him to play a concert in Wichita for Marriage Encounter families. He agreed to it, and when the arrangements fell through less than a week before the concert, I got an idea. Our pastor agreed to have the concert at our church and I had my grand piano moved to the church and tuned for the occasion. Our associate pastor knew a guy who set up a 24 channel sound system. When he came in early to try out the piano and check the microphones, he played an excerpt from a Beethoven sonata on the piano. That has nothing to do with the story, but I was so excited to see him playing Beethoven on my piano and then his own songs, that I wanted to tell about it.

Anyway my wife and I just read a book by James Brian Smith called “The Room of Marvels” where Smith, a divinity professor at Friends University (Rich’s Alma Mater), talked about several people in his family who died in the same time frame as Rich. Part of the time Rich was in Wichita he lived in an attic apartment in Smith’s house, and Smith has given several public talks on what it was like living with Rich. Anyway, my wife and I went to Friends U last week to see if we could talk to Smith, but ended up instead in a bizarre “coincidence” talking to another guy who works with Smith whom we knew from his previous job. This guy was one of Rich’s close personal friends, and he told us that Rich had done extensive study in Catholicism and was on the verge of converting.

OK so this is off-topic, but I actually also gained respect for my own Church because of Rich’s interest in Catholicism, and because my pastor, now retired, went from being disgusted with making all those arrangements for Rich’s concert to loving Rich almost immediately when Rich began to talk.

Alan

 

[jeffreedy789]

the rascal. it was (and is) practically impossible NOT to love him…

i’ve heard it said that we like people for their strengths, but love them for their weaknesses. so it was with rich.

rich makes it easier for me to understand marian devotion. if i can (and do) have a devotion to rich mullins, why can’t people (including me) have a devotion to mary?

thanks for the stories. good to hear. i miss rich, and look fwd to seeing him again one day.

 

[fix]

petra:

Well, for the record, my issues have absolutely nothing to do with sex. I am happily married, chaste, and do not practice contraception. I agree with all the moral teaching of the church. To be blunt, it is inappropriate for you to presume.

I was not referring to you personally. I am sorry if you took it that way. I stand by my post.

 

[fix]

I actually have no problem being Catholic if the Church is not perfectly infallible. Nothing is perfect except for God. My faith is in God, not man.

Great, then you have no problem accepting the role of Pope as Christ’s vicar who has the authority to bind and loose and speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals.

To reject papal authority and the magisterium is to reject the catholic faith.

 

[mercygate]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear Augustinian,

At the orders of my psychiatrist, I quit all involvement with the parish except as church organist.

Alan

Dear Alan,

:bigyikes:Find another psychiatrist! This one clearly doesn’t know which job in the church will send a sensitive person round the bend faster than any other! :whacky:

 

[petra]

The Augustinian:

Perhaps we do not understand everything that the Church teaches, nor why it has given us a certain law. But, it is not our position to judge, but to humbly obey the teachings of the Church, asking the Holy Spirit: “Open thou my eyes: and I will consider the wondrous things of thy law.” May God grant us a faith seeking understanding, speaking as an undivided Church, “Thou hast the words of eternal life.” Amen.

I believe in submission to authority. Divisions, factions, and schisms destroy the Church and its effectiveness in reaching the world for Christ. Lack of submission also undermines a marriage and makes a country weak. Many Christians severely undermine Christain unity by not submitting to one another and to authority.

But Godly submission does not exclude dissension, if it is necessary and handled in a diplomatic way. Our highest obligation is to God Himself and if we see something we believe to be wrong, it is our moral duty to speak up. It may be that the Catholic Church has condemned this to such an extent that it is partially culpable for some of the schisms in history.

What do you think about Paul’s dissention toward the Pope in Galatians 2? Was he being unsubmissive? What about the manner in which he confronted him? He confronted him publicly and “in his face.” Was this perilous for Paul’s soul?

Should he have just submitted and followed Peter and the others who “were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel”? Should he just have said to himself, “I do not understand why the Pope is doing these things which seem wrong. It seems as if he is misguiding people with regard to the truth of the gospel. But I will submit to his leadership anyway because he has the charism of the Holy Spirit.”

I’m serious! What should Paul have done?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

mercygate:

Dear Alan,

Find another psychiatrist! This one clearly doesn’t know which job in the church will send a sensitive person round the bend faster than any other!

ROFLOL!

Dear mercygate,

You have a great point; you must know about church music. To be fair to my Dr, I admit I left out a critical detail. Actually he didn’t know until recently that I was still playing the organ and he acted surprised that I was able to hold the job!

Playing the organ is fine; nobody has a problem with how I play. Choosing the songs is what can drive one crazy.

During a recent depression I actually became slightly psychotic, and nearly suicidal, every week while picking songs. I never care what songs we do. I just want to please everyone I can. When I showed up for Church, no matter what I had picked, even when I thought it is totally benign, it got criticized by the lady in charge of the music. I’d offer to change them and she’d say, “no, just play what you have chosen.” She doesn’t want to pick them, however, because “everybody is happy with the good job you are doing.” Arrrgh! Then she or the priest will say, “don’t ever play that one song again,” and on my way out of church people will stop me and say they really loved that song and they hope we can sing it again. Once one couple said they get tired of hearing the same old music over and over, and a month later (without any change in my method of choosing) the same couple said they hate it when we sing new songs that they don’t know!

Luckily, I have finally dealt with all these issues internally and now I just smile in amusement (on the inside) at their antics.

Alan

 

[fix]

But Godly submission does not exclude dissension

Can you provide an instance where dissent is morally justified in regard to truth? I am not referring to a prudential judgement, but to issues of faith and morals.

If the Pope ,and bishops in union with him, are not the authentic teachers annointed by Christ, then the entire Church is a sham and there is no eternal truth and no way to learn the truth.

Finally, the measure of humility is obedience.

 

[petra]

fix:

Can you provide an instance where dissent is morally justified in regard to truth? I am not referring to a prudential judgement, but to issues of faith and morals.

If the Pope ,and bishops in union with him, are not the authentic teachers annointed by Christ, then the entire Church is a sham and there is no eternal truth and no way to learn the truth.

Finally, the measure of humility is obedience.

Presumably St. Paul was morally justified in his dissent. Since this example is in Scripture, it is a good one to talk about. What do you think about his dissension? Did Paul lack humility?

 

[jordan]

petra:

Presumably St. Paul was morally justified in his dissent. Since this example is in Scripture, it is a good one to talk about. What do you think about his dissension? Did Paul lack humility?

Petra, I will once again post the quote from the CA library, since maybe you didn’t get a chance to read it.

"Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:15–16). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals."

So Paul’s dissent was in regard to a disipline, and that Peter was not living up to what he knew was right in regard to compelling the gentiles to live according to Jewish dietary laws.

Paul rebuked Peter for his inconsistency, and was justified in his dissent in this disciplinary matter. He was not rebuking him for being wrong in a matter of faith and morals, but for hypocrisy in his own actions.

A faithful Catholic cannot dissent from dogmatically defined Church teachings in matters of faith and morals such as her teachings on abortion, euthanasia, contraception, male priesthood, etc.

We can dissent on some private judgments such as the application of the death penalty, or social justice, since it’s OK to debate the means to achieving the ends of protecting life, and preserving the dignity of it…all life, from conception to tomb.

As to the relationship between Paul and Peter, **Peter **settles the matter at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15: 1-12). The matter is debated by the Jewish Christians apostles and elders; Peter speaks; the matter is settled…period.

 

[petra]

jordan:

Petra, I will once again post the quote from the CA library, since maybe you didn’t get a chance to read it.

So Paul’s dissent was in regard to a disipline, and that Peter was not living up to what he knew was right in regard to compelling the gentiles to live according to Jewish dietary laws.

Hi Jordan. I did read it, but the distinction you make in this situation (between discipline and faith) is not clear to me. Peter’s actions were misguiding people in matters of faith and the gospel. He was leading people down a path that was not in line with the truth of the gospel. How does this not fit within the category of faith and morals? It’s hard for me to minimize this as simply a disciplinary issue or a mere lack of personal impeccability on Peter’s part, due to the subject and due to the consequences. Part of Paul’s rebuke to Peter included a review of gospel: that a person is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ. Peter evidently needed to hear this in order to realize his error.

Given that this account is described in scripture in the light that it is, I agree that Paul’s dissent was divinely directed. The positive outcome of the Council of Jerusalem may have never occured if Paul had not done this, and the course of Christianity may have been much different.

 

[javelin]

What a great discussion!

A big thank you to Alan, petra, and others for pushing this debate deeper than “Just listen to the Church” vs. “I’ll do what I want”.

My two cents…

I believe God desires us to be obedient.
I believe God desires us to constantly seek to hear and do His will.
I believe God gave us the Church to guide us in faith and morals.
I believe God through the Holy Spirit protects the Church as a Body from guiding us in error on faith and morals.
I believe that sin matters; avoiding sin is important.
I believe the laws of the Church help us avoid sin.
I believe it is the duty of the Church to make us aware of where sin lurks (its “John the Baptist” role).
I believe it is the duty of the Church to love us, especially in our sin, in order to turn our hearts towards Jesus once again (its “Christ” role).
I believe the Church leadership isn’t perfect.
I believe that we are most often even less perfect.
I know that it is very hard to discriminate between the “perfect” Church and the “imperfect” people who make up the leadership of that Church.
I know this often makes me and others confused about what to believe.
I believe God gave me a mind, and He expects me to use it.
I believe God gave me a heart, and He expects me to listen to it.
I believe God gave me faith, and He expects me to adhere to it.
I know that my mind, heart, and faith don’t always agree.
I know that the struggle will always persist, and that God honors me that I do not give up.
I believe that when in doubt, I should continue to be obedient.
I believe I should completely trust the Church.
I know that I (and many others) have difficulty always doing that.
I know that dogma, doctrine, and discipline are all different, and that the differences are important.
I know that I don’t always understand if a belief is a dogma, doctrine, or discipline.
I believe that I will be punished for not doing the master’s will, even if I don’t know it (see Luke 12).
I know that I am trying.
I know that the burden of “Catholic guilt” is real, and deadly.
I believe that God does not want us to live our lives looking back in guilt.
I believe that God does not want us to sin, because
I believe that God loves me.
I know that God loves me.
And in that knowledge I find the hope and joy that sustains me.

Peace,
javelin

 

[javelin]

jordan:

A faithful Catholic cannot dissent from dogmatically defined Church teachings in matters of faith and morals such as her teachings on abortion, euthanasia, contraception, male priesthood, etc.

I didn’t know that a male priesthood was dogma. Are you certain?

I’m certain that a celibate priesthood is not doctrine or dogma, but a Church-imposed discipline.

This outlines a critical point – in reality, we don’t even know what is supposed to be Truth from the Catholic Church, and what is simply the Church’s position right now. I would also bet that most in the clergy wouldn’t score 100% on a test of 100 Church teachings, and whether they were doctrine, dogma, discipline, or suggestion. Yes, we are called to learn about those things, etc., but the truth of the matter is that we are not all called to be theological intellectual powerhouses, nor can we all possibly come to know and understand everything. It is just not as simple as some in this discussion are making it.

The only thing we can do is obey, I guess, and trust in God’s mercy and love if somehow that is wrong. I believe that is “safer” than disobeying when in doubt.

I also firmly believe that God credits obedience with righteousness, and there is evidence (Abraham and Isaac) that the more we may internally disagree with a command, the more God will credit us when we still our pride and obey Him nonetheless.

Peace,
javelin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

" 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.

Some aren’t - only General Councils are; not provincial or diocesan or other Councils​

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

OK - but, why is wrong belief any more objectionable than wrong *conduct *?​

This question never seems to be asked - so, what is the answer (or, what could be the answers ?) I think it’s a very important one.

People often talk about “faithful” or “orthodox” or “true” or “genuine” or “obedient” Catholics - this is dangerous, because self-awarded labels like this seem to imply that right believing is better than right behaving; but no such distinction is made in the Bible. (satan is a more skilful theologian than any of us, with a far better knowledge of Church teaching - and little good it does him.) If we give ourselves labels, we are in danger of introducing, or aggravating, the spirit of partisan pride into the Church; which can hardly build it up. Until we see ourselves as we really are - not, as we think we are now - surely, it would be much wiser not to use any labels but “Christian” & “Catholic” ? ##

 

[petra]

Gottle of Geer:

People often talk about “faithful” or “orthodox” or “true” or “genuine” or “obedient” Catholics - this is dangerous, because self-awarded labels like this seem to imply that right believing is better than right behaving; but no such distinction is made in the Bible.

Excellent point!

 

[petra]

javelin:

What a great discussion!

A big thank you to Alan, petra, and others for pushing this debate deeper than “Just listen to the Church” vs. “I’ll do what I want”.

My two cents…

I believe God desires us to be obedient.
I believe God desires us to constantly seek to hear and do His will.
I believe God gave us the Church to guide us in faith and morals.
I believe God through the Holy Spirit protects the Church as a Body from guiding us in error on faith and morals.
I believe that sin matters; avoiding sin is important.
I believe the laws of the Church help us avoid sin.
I believe it is the duty of the Church to make us aware of where sin lurks (its “John the Baptist” role).
I believe it is the duty of the Church to love us, especially in our sin, in order to turn our hearts towards Jesus once again (its “Christ” role).
I believe the Church leadership isn’t perfect.
I believe that we are most often even less perfect.
I know that it is very hard to discriminate between the “perfect” Church and the “imperfect” people who make up the leadership of that Church.
I know this often makes me and others confused about what to believe.
I believe God gave me a mind, and He expects me to use it.
I believe God gave me a heart, and He expects me to listen to it.
I believe God gave me faith, and He expects me to adhere to it.
I know that my mind, heart, and faith don’t always agree.
I know that the struggle will always persist, and that God honors me that I do not give up.
I believe that when in doubt, I should continue to be obedient.
I believe I should completely trust the Church.
I know that I (and many others) have difficulty always doing that.
I know that dogma, doctrine, and discipline are all different, and that the differences are important.
I know that I don’t always understand if a belief is a dogma, doctrine, or discipline.
I believe that I will be punished for not doing the master’s will, even if I don’t know it (see Luke 12).
I know that I am trying.
I know that the burden of “Catholic guilt” is real, and deadly.
I believe that God does not want us to live our lives looking back in guilt.
I believe that God does not want us to sin, because
I believe that God loves me.
I know that God loves me.
And in that knowledge I find the hope and joy that sustains me.

Peace,
javelin

Thanks for your 2 cents, Javelin. This certainly sums up the struggle we encounter on our spiritual journey. But the struggle itself is a blessing because it draws us closer to the Lord!

 

[petra]

jordan:

As to the relationship between Paul and Peter, **Peter **settles the matter at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15: 1-12). The matter is debated by the Jewish Christians apostles and elders; Peter speaks; the matter is settled…period.

Actually, Jordan, after hearing everyone’s testimony, including Peter’s, it was James who issued the final binding judgment – not Peter. See Acts 15:19.

 

[javelin]

Gottle of Geer:

self-awarded labels like this seem to imply that right believing is better than right behaving;

I would actually say that it appears in many cases that the Bible teaches that true belief and faith are inseparable from *behavior *and *action *(works). Thus, one’s belief is truly not objectionable unless that belief carries through into action. An example would be someone who doubts a particular Church teaching. Doubt is not in and of itself morally evil. But if that person acted against the True teaching, or convinced others to act wrongly, the person would be culpable for that sin. Note that “action” can be a variety of things, from ceasing to pray to indulging in harmful fantasies.

Which is why the Church admonishes believers to continue to obey, even while in doubt.

Peace,
javelin