The Perils of Dissent

[The_Augustinian]

Well, Pat, what do you think are “infallible” teachings? Things like women clergy, homosexuality, and so forth, are matters of docrtrine and morals, whereas married clergy is an example of a discipline. Moreover, the issue of things like “teaching the bible as history” whatever that means, and the age of the Earth, whatever it may be, are, depending on how they are framed, outside the “territory” of faith and morals which the Church protects.

As for the Bible, certainly the Church teaches that it be taken as literal, if by “literal” we define, along with St. Thomas, as what the original author meant when writing. This of course would include the allegorical, historical, and other readings.

If you do look at the churches which have conformed to the Zeitgeist, such as the Episcopalians, we don’t really have much of a renewal there…everyone listens to Bishop Spong, except for his nonexistent flock.

I think this “Spirit” you speak of is not the Holy Spirit that we speak of.

In Christ,

The Augustinian

 

[patg]

fix:

Ultra orthodox? Hmm, like Mother theresa? She stood with the magisterium. Would she be ultra orthodox?

Sure, why not?

A lot depends on the definition of change. God does not change. He is eternal. The Holy Spirit speaks to us all, but only the magisterium speaks infallibly. You do not and I do not. Much of our current problems come from those filled with the spirit of error.

But the magistrium is made up of the bishops who are priests and if the Spirit is moving so many of them to make or allow changes (even some mere humans don’t approve of), eventually the Church will reflect those ideas. And the magisterium speaks on a whole lot more issues than the infallible ones so there’s still plenty of room for changes.

That depends on which spirit one is talking about. For example, if that spirit is telling some that birth control is moral or that women need to be priestesses, then that is not the Holy Spirit. It is either the human spirit, or the evil spirit.

Ah yes, those evil women who are called by satan to think they can represent God. Interesting you would combine two issues that are such moral opposites.

Yep, can’t imagine why so many are concerned about the direction of the Church? Let us see…homosexual abuse scandals, open schism, heresy, errors being taught as truth, etc. Change can be used as a word to defend all sorts of things, some good and some evil.

Funny, all those things have been around since the beginning and we’re still here. Or do you think the dissenting liberals invented them all in the past few years? I’m glad to see there is the possibility of good change!

Respectfully disagreeing,
Pat

 

[fix]

patg:

Sure, why not?

She is a good example of how we should believe and behave.

But the magistrium is made up of the bishops who are priests and if the Spirit is moving so many of them to make or allow changes (even some mere humans don’t approve of), eventually the Church will reflect those ideas

The changes some make are not authentic changes, but rather dissenting, heterodox, errors that mirror our pagan culture.

Ah yes, those evil women who are called by satan to think they can represent God. Interesting you would combine two issues that are such moral opposites.

Hmm. God says women are not to be priestesses, yet some women say they are called? So, truth can contradict truth? Issues of gender and genital sexuality go to the core of dissent in our age. If I question a dissenter hard enough, it always comes down to one of the issues regarding sex or gender.

Funny, all those things have been around since the beginning and we’re still here. Or do you think the dissenting liberals invented them all in the past few years?

Nope, those heresiarchs can’t even come up with a new heresy. They keep spinning the old ones and complaining about Mother Church.

 

[javelin]

I hope that the tone of people’s discussion on this topic remains charitable and loving. This is a good discussion, and I hope the tenor of members’ responses don’t drive away anyone who is genuinely interested in participating in charity.

 

[javelin]

patg,

patg:

Sorry if I wasn’t clear but I am not speaking of the changing the “core” issues related to infallibility at all. The dissent mentioned at the beginning had nothing to do with that. I am speaking of non-infallible issues that and teachings that need to change because our world view has changed and because the Spirit is moving many in the church to change.

Here we completely agree. Thank you for clarifying, as it is silly to argue about something when both sides really agree!

patg:

Hundreds of years from now, catholics will probably look back in a very similar manner at the attitudes towards women in the church, married clergy, treating the bible as history, homosexuals, etc.

Careful, though, some of the things you mentioned above *are *dogmatically defined (infallible), and so immutable and not up for debate. By “attitudes towards women in the church”, I will assume you mean women in the priesthood. As a previous post showed, this has been dogmatically pronounced by Pope John Paul II. Married clergy is a discipline, and may change (but don’t count on it any time soon). I’m 99% certain that the Church’s position that artificial birth control and homosexual sex are intrinsically evil are both dogmatic as well. I’m not sure what you mean by “the Bible as history”.

So when you talk about “change”, don’t say in one breath that you don’t believe in the changing of dogma and in the next breath that you think certain dogmas may change. I completely understand that is is difficult to always know what is dogma and what is discipline, but when you find out, don’t persist in doubt, or you are in fact doubting the core of Catholicism, the authority of the Church.

patg:

But the magistrium is made up of the bishops who are priests and if the Spirit is moving so many of them to make or allow changes (even some mere humans don’t approve of), eventually the Church will reflect those ideas. And the magisterium speaks on a whole lot more issues than the infallible ones so there’s still plenty of room for changes.

I agree with you 100% here, especially the last sentence. However, that doesn’t mean that if the Church doesn’t define something dogmatic, it is OK to ignore it. We are still called to obedience, but know that the discipline may later be changed if it is beneficial to the salvation of souls.

Peace,
javelin

 

[javelin]

The Augustinian:

If you do look at the churches which have conformed to the Zeitgeist, such as the Episcopalians, we don’t really have much of a renewal there…everyone listens to Bishop Spong, except for his nonexistent flock.

Can you elaborate on this comment? I don’t understand what you are referencing, and I’m curious…

javelin

 

[fix]

javelin:

I hope that the tone of people’s discussion on this topic remains charitable and loving. This is a good discussion, and I hope the tenor of members’ responses don’t drive away anyone who is genuinely interested in participating in charity.

There are two things to say about this. First, authentic charity can be admonishing those who persist in error. Our culture has defined charity as tip toeing around the truth because we do not want to be confrontational. While I agree we should preach the truth with charity we must, also, not be hoodwinked into discussions that are intentionally misleading.

Second, while I do not want to accuse anyone of disingenuous motives, it would seem obvious that some posters know full well what they are trying to accomplish. I do not mean genuine dialogue, or questioning Church teaching to come to a deeper understanding, but rather some who may genuinely disagree and try to blame the Church for teaching other than the truth or misleading others about the true nature of the Church’s teaching authority.

I am trying to be charitable, without being taken advantage of.

 

[Pax]

I do not agree with the idea that the Church has innumerable rules or that the rules of the Church are in any way comparable to the Mosaic and Levitical laws of the OT. The Church does have a vast array of teachings that make known the truths of God and His divine plan. These truths are to believed, but they are not rules and laws such as those of the OT. Check out the hundreds of disciplines that the Jews had to live by and you will see the difference.

Even when it comes to scripture the Church has not always made a definitive interpretation for all passages, and allows for freedom of interpretation where some things are not clear.

Catholic Christianty is a special way of life, but a holy and worshipful Catholic and a holy and worshipful non-Catholic Christian would be hard to tell apart in terms of their lifestyle and behavior. The Catholic Church in no way burdens her children.

An earlier post questioned the authority of the Magesterium and the infallibility of the Magesterium in the area of faith and morals. The comment was made that to trust the Magesterium in this way is a form of idolatry because it places the Magesterium on a par with God. To this kind of thinking, I can only respond by saying that Jesus himself gave the teaching authority, the keys, and the power to bind and loose to the Church. Our submission to that authority instilled by Jesus is obedience to God and not idolatry. Moreover, it is perhaps a form of self idolatry to ditch the Magesterium in favor of listening to my own conscience, intellect, and understandings when I place myself above the teachings of the Church.

 

[trogiah]

javelin:

As a norm, I would certainly agree that “following the example of Jesus” will not put us at odds with Church authority, but there is a distinct danger in your statement. You imply that “since Jesus defied authority at times, it is OK for us to do so at times”. That is simply not true. While we are definitely called to follow Jesus, we do not possess the ultimate moral authority that He did in defying Jewish leadership. He even admonished His apostles to heed Jewish authority, since their authority came from the “chair of Moses”.

I would not characterize Jesus’s act of healing on the Sabbath as an act of defiance of authority, rather an act showing He recognized God’s authority over that of the human authorities. I believe we are sometimes called to do the same.

javelin:

Looking at ourselves first at “following Jesus” and secondly as “obeying to the Church” brings in the distinct possibility that at some time “following Jesus” will contradict “obeying the Church”, and since “following Jesus” takes precedence, it is OK to defy the Church and “follow Jesus” instead. Sound like protestantism anyone? This is exactly what Luther did.

I am wondering what we mean by “obeying the Church” or “defying the church.” Every pope, starting with Peter, has made errors. Every bishop, priest, even the saints. I believe every person is called to live a life as close to the life of Jesus as possible, even when the examples of the hierarchy is not very Christ-like.

Luther wasn’t wrong because he thought the hierarchy was mistaken on some issues. They were. He wasn’t wrong to point out their faults to them. That is what Christ did also. He was probably wrong to make his criticisms public and he was certainly wrong to try and form a seperate church (to whatever extent he really intended to do that)

Does someone defy the pope when they tell him, “Pope, I think you are mistaken about this.”

Maybe they are defying the pope but not necessarily are they defying God.

Does someone defy the pope when they tell other church members they shouldn’t listen to him or pay any attention to his teachings?

I think that is a much greater act of defiance.

javelin:

Rather, I think we are to see “following Jesus” and “obeying the Church” as one in the same thing. Back to the quote which opened this thread: " 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.

Listening to a person doesn’t necessarily mean total unquestioning acceptance and disagreement doesn’t necessarily mean rejection. I understand this quote gives significance to the teachings of the Apostles and their successors but to say it means every pope, bishop and priest is an unfailing mouth piece of God is not true.

javelin:

First, follow my commandments.
Then truly give up your life and turn it over to me.

Respectfully, I think the order is reversed, as important as they both are. Often in the Old Testament we are told to Love God and to keep His commandments. (The love of God comes first) Those who turn away are guilty first of serving false gods and secondly of failure to keep commandments.

Back to the first issue of dissent.

Our church is not threatened by laity in disagreement with those who sit in the seat of Peter.

Disagreement presented publicly and inappropriately can be a stumbling block to some believers.

Dismissing the Apostolic authority of the church as irrelevant is a serious threat to unity.

The Love of God should be our highest priority even when we can’t make sense out of specific church teachings (whether it is our fault or the fault of the teacher)

-Jim

ps

I appreciate the request for civil discussion. The issues are important and sometimes tempers flare.

 

[The_Augustinian]

There’s nothing wrong with criticism, per se, so long as the criticism is done charitably, without any scandal. But, on the other hand, criticism can get out of hand. Martin Luther, for example, had some legitimate concerns, at least concerning the abuse of indulgences. The Council of Trent reformed the Church, and defined exactly what justification was, a position not too far removed from the Luther’s.

As for authority, we Catholics have three: the Bible, Tradition, and the Church. These three authorities fundamentally make up the same deposit of faith, so they cannot contradict. Thus, we ought to try to harmonize the three as much as possible. But, when there seems to be a contradiction, we may question, but ultimately we ought to give a basic religious assent to what the Magisterium teaches, even if it is fallible.

Now, a Catholic can disagree with the Pope, but this depends on the position that the Pope holds. Certainly it’s possible to disagree with the Pope’s direction in ecumenism, to an extent, as well as his personal conduct, though I think this current Pope is a very holy man. However, to disagree with the Pope on things like, for example, the Immaculate Conception, or Hell, or abortion, is definitely going into dangerous territory. And persisting in this dissension is a virtual self-separation from the Church. So, we ought to be careful when viewing these issues.

In Christ,

The Augustinian

 

[javelin]

trogiah:

I would not characterize Jesus’s act of healing on the Sabbath as an act of defiance of authority, rather an act showing He recognized God’s authority over that of the human authorities…

Memebrs of the Sanhedrin most definitely objected to some of Jesus’ actions on the Sabbath. The appearance is, at least, that He acted in opposition to what they wished. I concede that it is most likely that only certain members of the Sanhedrin rebuked Jesus for this, not the council as a whole. It is also true that just with any “law”, there is some room for interpretation, and Jesus was demonstrating that the Jewish leadership at the time was “over-applying” the law to suit their own agendas, while fogetting the most important essence of Jewish law. Thus, I believe it can readily be argued that Jesus never actually broke Jewish Law (or, by corrollary, defied Jewish authority). So, I can agree with what you said above, as least as far as I understand what you are getting at.

trogiah:

I believe we are sometimes called to do the same

And I agree with this, too, so long as you are referring to pointing people, even Church authorities, back to the core Truths of doctrine if they seem to be going astray.

trogiah:

I am wondering what we mean by “obeying the Church” or “defying the church.” Every pope, starting with Peter, has made errors. Every bishop, priest, even the saints. I believe every person is called to live a life as close to the life of Jesus as possible, even when the examples of the hierarchy is not very Christ-like.

Luther wasn’t wrong because he thought the hierarchy was mistaken on some issues. They were. He wasn’t wrong to point out their faults to them. That is what Christ did also. He was probably wrong to make his criticisms public and he was certainly wrong to try and form a seperate church (to whatever extent he really intended to do that).

Again, I totally agree with you here. What did I say that made you think otherwise?

trogiah:

Does someone defy the pope when they tell him, “Pope, I think you are mistaken about this.”

No, but I do believe that we are to act in obedience while we voice our concerns and engage in charitable debate. Thus, if the Pope tells us to do something, we are to do it in obedience to his authority, even if we believe he is wrong. It would also be wrong for us to keep the concerns of our conscience supressed, so we *must *engage in charitable debate, even while acting in obedience.

trogiah:

Maybe they are defying the pope but not necessarily are they defying God.

I am using the term “defy” to mean consciously acting contrary to something or someone. I honestly don’t believe we should ever openly defy the Pope. I believe that God’s authority was entrusted to the Pope such that defying the Pope == defying God. A necessary foundation of that belief is that I believe the Pope will never instruct us to do something that is intrinsically evil. He may *do *something evil, but he will never exercise the authority of his office to compel us to do something evil. Can we express disagreement with the Pope? Charitably, yes. Tempered so as not to lead others astray uneccessarily, yes. Just as you state here:

trogiah:

Does someone defy the pope when they tell other church members they shouldn’t listen to him or pay any attention to his teachings?

YES

I think that is a much greater act of defiance.

ABSOLUTELY

continued…

 

[javelin]

trogiah:

Listening to a person doesn’t necessarily mean total unquestioning acceptance and disagreement doesn’t necessarily mean rejection. I understand this quote gives significance to the teachings of the Apostles and their successors but to say it means every pope, bishop and priest is an unfailing mouth piece of God is not true.

I agree with you completely. It does not mean they are an “unfailing mouth piece of God” (I never claimed that). However, just because they may sometimes speak or act in error does not mean we can ignore them whenever we disagree (and I don’t think you are saying this). We must still obey while speaking out for our conscience in charity.

So, really, I don’t think we disagree on much at all (if anything). We may be shading it slightly with how we state it, but the same core belief seems to be identical.

trogiah:

Respectfully, I think the order is reversed, as important as they both are. Often in the Old Testament we are told to Love God and to keep His commandments. (The love of God comes first) Those who turn away are guilty first of serving false gods and secondly of failure to keep commandments.

This may be a whole different discussion. Suffice it to say here that I stand by my original statment, (notice I never mentioned love) in that I believe the first is a necessary foundation for a true experience of the second. Certainly there is an initial *form *of love that is a gift of God and needed to have the ability to truly follow His commandments. But that love will never mature to the depth necessary for deep, complete discipleship (step 2) if the person is
still tied to sinful defiance of basic commandments (step 1).

Back to the first issue of dissent.
Our church is not threatened by laity in disagreement with those who sit in the seat of Peter.

Let me make an important distinction that I made in a previous post on this thread: disagreement is OK with the Pope only if it is not on a matter that has been dogmatically (infallibly) defined. This is the one instance where we are to give complete submission to Church authority. It is still OK to ask questions to try to understand the teaching more fully, but object disagreement is not acceptable.

trogiah:

Disagreement presented publicly and inappropriately can be a stumbling block to some believers.

Dismissing the Apostolic authority of the church as irrelevant is a serious threat to unity.

The Love of God should be our highest priority even when we can’t make sense out of specific church teachings (whether it is our fault or the fault of the teacher)
-Jim

On those points I agree 100%

trogiah:

ps

I appreciate the request for civil discussion. The issues are important and sometimes tempers flare.

Thanks for the affirmation. That was one I almost didn’t post. However, I really value the frank reflections of everyone who has posted here, and I didn’t want to lose anyone’s participation because they felt like their questions or responses were not respected.

Peace, javelin

 

[patg]

javelin:

Careful, though, some of the things you mentioned above *are *dogmatically defined (infallible), and so immutable and not up for debate. By “attitudes towards women in the church”, I will assume you mean women in the priesthood. As a previous post showed, this has been dogmatically pronounced by Pope John Paul II. Married clergy is a discipline, and may change (but don’t count on it any time soon). I’m 99% certain that the Church’s position that artificial birth control and homosexual sex are intrinsically evil are both dogmatic as well. I’m not sure what you mean by “the Bible as history”.

Thanks for continuing this discussion, I find it beneficial sometimes to have to organize my thoughts and post them publicly.

Lets take the women in the priesthood issue - I find it ridiculous that someone would be told they are not Catholic (or cafeteria or CINO) if they strongly disagreed with the teaching and actively pushed for a change in this. (I believe threads should stay mostly on topic so I’m NOT trying to start a discussion of this - just using it as an example). There is infinitely more to our relationship with God than this.

I firmly believe that this will eventually change and I will continue to respectfully dissent in any way I can (I do agree it won’t be in any of our lifetimes!).

The “bible as history” comments relates to a thread here on Adam and Eve in which I was labeled cafeteria or heretic or something similar for voicing the strong opinion that this story (and others such as the Infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke or the Flood) were not written to teach history - I was told the church teaches we were to believe them to have actually occured. Once again, saying someone is not really a Catholic when they disagree with such things is really trivializing what it means to be Cathoilc.

Pat

 

[AlanFromWichita]

patg:

Thanks for continuing this discussion, I find it beneficial sometimes to have to organize my thoughts and post them publicly.

Lets take the women in the priesthood issue - I find it ridiculous that someone would be told they are not Catholic (or cafeteria or CINO) if they strongly disagreed with the teaching and actively pushed for a change in this. (I believe threads should stay mostly on topic so I’m NOT trying to start a discussion of this - just using it as an example). There is infinitely more to our relationship with God than this.

Dear Pat,

I like your point that there is more to out relationship with God than this. That’s partly what I was trying to say on other threads where I questioned the importance of some of the Church teachings. It wasn’t so much that the Church doesn’t have the “right” to behave as she pleases, but to teach certain things that are strictly intellectual and largely a matter of speculation as if they are important to how we live out lives or our salvation – I just don’t get it.

The “bible as history” comments relates to a thread here on Adam and Eve in which I was labeled cafeteria or heretic or something similar for voicing the strong opinion that this story (and others such as the Infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke or the Flood) were not written to teach history - I was told the church teaches we were to believe them to have actually occured. Once again, saying someone is not really a Catholic when they disagree with such things is really trivializing what it means to be Cathoilc.

Pat

It’s funny you picked that particular example. My son just completed four years of Catholic high school, where they taught him that Genesis and Revelation are the two books of the Bible we are to interpret figuratively. Actually that was amazing to me, considering some of the teachings we hear about a lot these days trace their origins to a literal interpretation of phrases in Genesis and are then highly extrapolated.

There are several reason I question the Church on a regular basis. Sometimes I am trying to understand their teachings more, and sometimes I see from my position “in the trenches” that teachings are divisive and have more to do with organizational power struggles than with our salvation. For example, this whole “infallibility” teaching is evidently widely misunderstood and variably applied by so many, that I think it is a stumbling block to most. It seems that when I question something, I am sometimes told, “well that is not an infallible teaching,” but then it is defended as if it were, and I am told that disagreeing with any article of faith, no matter how small, makes me less than fully Catholic. I can’t win, except by shutting my mouth and smiling and doing whatever I’m told even though it is often unclear what I am supposed to do. It’s as if believing is a matter of will. I don’t know; I have so much to say I’ll just leave it at that for now.

Alan

 

[petra]

AlanFromWichita:

For example, this whole “infallibility” teaching is evidently widely misunderstood and variably applied by so many, that I think it is a stumbling block to most. It seems that when I question something, I am sometimes told, “well that is not an infallible teaching,” but then it is defended as if it were, and I am told that disagreeing with any article of faith, no matter how small, makes me less than fully Catholic.

Alan, I totally agree. It seems that if something changes, it somehow fits into another category besides faith and morals, even if common sense indicates that is exactly where it fits. I’m told by some people that the Catechism is inerrant and others that it is not. But even if it is not, we are still suppose to obey (even if something is wrong) for the purpose of preserving unity.

Is unity that is achieved through threats of mortal sin really unity? Did Christ really intend for us to be forced to be unified on issues that are not central to faith and morals? Don’t misunderstand–29,000 denominations couldn’t have been in His plan either. I am not discounting unity. But there are many ways the Catholic Church forces unity with penalty of mortal sin on issues that are simply about the unity. Examples include Sunday and Holy Day obligations and Friday pennance. I would much rather see that heavy hand lifted and see how many people voluntarily continue to participate in the very same things–out of the love in their heart and joy in Christ. I would bet you would see more unity, not less. Legalism is a poison to the human spirit. It’s almost like the Catholic Church doesn’t truly believe that the Truth transforms people. Instead, it feels the need to force people to comply.

 

[javelin]

patg:

Lets take the women in the priesthood issue - I find it ridiculous that someone would be told they are not Catholic (or cafeteria or CINO) if they strongly disagreed with the teaching and actively pushed for a change in this. (I believe threads should stay mostly on topic so I’m NOT trying to start a discussion of this - just using it as an example). There is infinitely more to our relationship with God than this.

I firmly believe that this will eventually change and I will continue to respectfully dissent in any way I can (I do agree it won’t be in any of our lifetimes!).

OK, let’s take that example, as it seems to be a sticky one. This is from one of your previous posts (empasis mine):

patg:

Sorry if I wasn’t clear but I am not speaking of the changing the “core” issues related to infallibility at all. The dissent mentioned at the beginning had nothing to do with that. I am speaking of non-infallible issues that and teachings that need to change because our world view has changed and because the Spirit is moving many in the church to change.

To which I pointed out that women in the priesthood has been infallibly defined as dogma by Pope John Paul II (someone else pointed it out to me first–thank you to them):

From ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS:

Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Unless you want to debate that this papal decree is not infallible (which you are welcome to do, but probably best in another thread), you are contradicting yourself when you say " I firmly believe that this will eventually change and I will continue to respectfully dissent in any way I can" and “I am not speaking of the changing the “core” issues related to infallibility at all”.

How do you respond to that?

Now, I admit that I empathize with your opinion that woman should be ordained. I was somewhat disheartened myself when I learned that was an infallible teaching. But instead of fighting against it, I will pray for the ability to see the Truth and goodness in it.

*…continued in next post *

 

[javelin]

patg:

The “bible as history” comments relates to a thread here on Adam and Eve in which I was labeled cafeteria or heretic or something similar for voicing the strong opinion that this story (and others such as the Infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke or the Flood) were not written to teach history - I was told the church teaches we were to believe them to have actually occured.

I am very sorry to hear that you were characterized that way unjustly, in my opinion. I am certain that the teaching that Adam and Eve were actual people, and every event of Genesis is meant to be 100% historically accurate is NOT dogmatically defined. Theologians disagree, but most, I think, see the text as representing a spiritual reality more than historical reality.

Once again, saying someone is not really a Catholic when they disagree with such things is really trivializing what it means to be Cathoilc.

Pat

I agree with you most certianly in this case. I also think that labelling people based only on some things said in a forum like this is prone to mischaracterization, and thus wrong.

However, the question of how one relates to the Church when one disagrees with a founding principle of that Church (namely, Church authority) is an important one to discuss. That’s why I like this discussion – it’s important to clearly understand our relationship to the earthly Church institution and leadership so we may properly respond to their instruction and guidance.

I also don’t mean to trivialize anyone’s catholicism, nor imply that any one single issue should be regarded above all others. Rather, I am trying to express my belief that every aspect of Truth should be striven for; that it’s not enough to think that we only need to follow that which we completely agree with. That’s the essence of “cafeteria Catholicism”, and it needs to be refuted. That’s an issue for more than only Catholics – I know a numer of “cafeteria Christians” as well.

Peace,
javelin

 

[AlanFromWichita]

petra:

Is unity that is achieved through threats of mortal sin really unity? Did Christ really intend for us to be forced to be unified on issues that are not central to faith and morals? Don’t misunderstand–29,000 denominations couldn’t have been in His plan either. I am not discounting unity.

Dear petra,

You are one of the few who seem to be catching my drift. It isn’t about adolescent mentality wanting their way; it is about not nitpicking. I’ve heard one philosopher say, “you are required and commanded to do something that only has meaning if you do it voluntarily.”

I say, if you (not you personally) think something is important enough that if I don’t agree it’s a sin, then it should be important enough for you to explain it well enough so that I can understand it. I really do try to understand. I cannot “will” myself to believe something that doesn’t make sense, although I am perfectly OK with tentatively believing things I “don’t understand yet.” Maybe that’s too subtle a distinction for some, but for me it is the key to whether I have any personal integrity.

But there are many ways the Catholic Church forces unity with penalty of mortal sin on issues that are simply about the unity.

Good point. I wonder if this was partly responsible for the existence of 29,000 denominations?

Alan

 

[petra]

AlanFromWichita:

I really do try to understand. I cannot “will” myself to believe something that doesn’t make sense, although I am perfectly OK with tentatively believing things I “don’t understand yet.” Maybe that’s too subtle a distinction for some, but for me it is the key to whether I have any personal integrity.

Me too. I’m okay with believing things I don’t understand if I trust the source and I don’t see any evidence to the contrary.

The few months that I have participated on the board, I’ve learned a lot about the Catholic Church. I have to say that what I’ve learned here these past few months has hurt my faith. (Ignorance is bliss! I long for the days when I first became Catholic! Everything was so simple!) The Church places higher emphasis on Tradition than Scripture. I am now seeing Scripture as a much more reliable venue of God’s communication to us. God has given us the Holy Spirit as a tutor to understand His Word. And while we are weak and may not always hear Him correctly, I still see more reliability here than by placing Tradition above Scripture. I will never be a sola scriptura person again. I recognize Tradition as a means of guiding the Church, but based on what I have learned, it seems to be vulnerable to human error, as well. Scripture seems much more reliable. I now place Tradition secondary to Scripture.

Before you all react and say that this thinking has produced 29,000 denominations, I would say that is a false conclusion. A sufficiently infallable Church with the love and gentleness to refrain from imposing threats of damnation on issues that are meant to guarantee unity-- such love and gentleness would prevent people from being driven away. It will also enable those who remain Catholic to have the freedom to love and serve God out of a joyful heart rather than fear. Then the Church would enjoy genuine unity!

Moral issues should not be threatened by a greater emphasis on Scripture. All of the Church’s moral issues are adequately supported in the Bible.

I believe the Church is sufficiently infallible, just not perfectly infallible. Matt. 16:18 does not imply perfect infallibility. And what I’ve learned here has really demonstrated this.

Good point. I wonder if this was partly responsible for the existence of 29,000 denominations?

Yes, I believe the CC is partially culpable.

 

[Strider]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear petra,
I say, if you (not you personally) think something is important enough that if I don’t agree it’s a sin, then it should be important enough for you to explain it well enough so that I can understand it. I really do try to understand. I cannot “will” myself to believe something that doesn’t make sense, although I am perfectly OK with tentatively believing things I “don’t understand yet.”
Alan

I used this example in a different thread, but I believe it works here.

Do you understand the Blessed Trinity?
Me neither.
Do you believe in the Blessed Trinity?
Me, too.

Here, I believe, is a case where faithful Christians will themselves to believe something that connot be understood.
If we can do that, then why can we not will ourselves to believe in the inerrancy of the Church in the areas of faith and morals. You all know the Scripture passages where Jesus gave the apostles infallibility, and you all understand apostolic authority.
If the Church is wrong on any teaching of faith and morals, then how can She be trusted on any other teaching, and the whole authority of the Church, founded by Jesus Christ, crumbles, all because we prideful men decided we knew better than the Body of Christ, of which he is the head.
God bless