The Perils of Dissent

[petra]

Strider:

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 cannot 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

Hi Strider, are you saying that:

If the Church is wrong on a single issue,
then it cannot be right on anything
and, thus, the Church crumbles.

If so, then that does not follow. Being wrong on one issue does not mean it cannot be right on many others and considerable confidence can be placed in Tradition.

Given what I have learned, it seems to me that the role of Tradition changes over time. Before the scriptures were canonized, it was the only way to convey the gospel. But with Scripture in place, it is now the more reliable source of God’s word. An example of the position of authority that Scripture has is when Jesus was being tempted by the devil, He did not quote Jewish tradition. He quoted Scripture.

Of our spiritual armor (Eph. 6:13-17), the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God is listed. Tradition is not included among the armor. God’s word is also the only offensive weapon listed among the items of armor.

This fact is relevant in view of Matt. 16:18. I found Reformed Rob’s thread about this verse very interesting. A gate, indeed, is a defensive structure. Gates don’t go other places to fight. The gate mentioned here is the site of the battle. Of our spiritual armor, the sword of the Spirit is the only offensive weapon we have to fight and win the battle at these gates. It makes so much sense. We are battling for the souls of non-Christians. What will win their hearts is the truth contained in the Word of God.

Even if gates could go other places and wage an offensive fight, the word “prevail” implies final outcome. It says nothing about small victories and losses on either side. It does not follow that the Church would necessarily be infallible. It only implies when the battle is finally over (presumably when Christ returns) the church will have ultimately prevailed.

Strider, I also hear you saying that
Unbelief = Not understanding

This also does not follow. As an example, I do not understand the Trinity, but I believe in that doctrine. On the other hand, I understand infallibility but do not believe the Church is perfectly infallible. Again, this is based on church history and lack of scriptural support, not difficulty in understanding. Nor is it due to pride. God knows my heart. I am completely committed to Him and deeply in love with Him. My personality is very submissive and compliant. I have no problem believing things I don’t understand and submitting to authority. But my first allegiance is to God. If something doesn’t square with His Word and the Holy Spirit’s impression on my conscience, then I have to obey.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Strider:

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.

Dear strider,

I don’t see that the Scriptures are in any way ambiguous to the teaching of the existence of the Blessed Trinity. Further, I as far as I know, the Church has not tried to define it in a speculative way and told us we had to believe it. Clearly Jesus refers to God the Father, and He refers to the Paraclete. Although it is a mystery how God is composed of three “persons” that is not a problem for me. We do know some of the characteristics of these three persons, and see that they have slightly different roles. I can accept that, and I do not understand it; it is not to be misunderstood. That said, I don’t have any particular “image” of the Trinity, so there really is nothing about it to believe or disbelieve.

The area of inerrancy of the Church is a different story. Here’s where we get human beings interpreting what God “really meant” and turning it into a belief system that we MUST agree with and defend, no matter what our own God-given minds tell us about them. If you are saying that when Jesus handed over the keys, he gave and/or proclaimed the apostles “infallible,” maybe we need to examine the word “infallible.”

Since I am a pilot, I’ll use that as an example. The FAA gives me final authority over, and responsibility for, the safety of a flight when I am acting pilot-in-command (PIC). That doesn’t mean that I am incapable of making an error, but somebody has to be in charge and in that situation, particularly in an emergency, I am it. Now, back to Peter, I don’t believe Jesus anywhere told him, “from now on you can do no wrong,” or “from now on your teaching will be perfect.”

Once I was flying as a passenger in the right seat of a Beech Baron, an airplane I was not rated to fly. We were climbing through clouds and air traffic control (ATC) was pretty busy and gave us a clearance. The PIC reached over and set his altitude reminder for 9,000 feet. I asked, “are we going to 9,000? I thought we were cleared for 8,000.” The pilot would have been within his authority to insist on cockpit silence at this busy time and switch off my headset. Instead, he called ATC and asked them to repeat the clearance. It was for 8,000 and he corrected his reminder bug appropriately.

In another example, the Space Shuttle Challenger was ready for liftoff except the weather was too cold for the proper operation for the O-rings. Several engineers and others did their best to sound the alarm, but they did not have authority to stop the liftoff. The high level muckity mucks who had “the seat of Peter,” as it were, did not want to delay the launch and let the shuttle go ahead and lift off, ending in disaster. They had all the organizational authority they needed to silence the dissenters, but was that wise?

More succinctly, Jesus gave them authority, and responsibility. I don’t believe he gave them “infallibility.” Having the keys does not a perfect driver make.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

petra:

Strider, I also hear you saying that
Unbelief = Not understanding

This also does not follow. As an example, I do not understand the Trinity, but I believe in that doctrine. On the other hand, I understand infallibility but do not believe the Church is perfectly infallible. Again, this is based on church history and lack of scriptural support, not difficulty in understanding. Nor is it due to pride. God knows my heart. I am completely committed to Him and deeply in love with Him. My personality is very submissive and compliant. I have no problem believing things I don’t understand and submitting to authority. But my first allegiance is to God. If something doesn’t square with His Word and the Holy Spirit’s impression on my conscience, then I have to obey.

Dear Petra,

It sounds like you read my mind and put it into words.

Here’s two more cents I would like to add (hopefully it doesn’t subract) is that I don’t understand exactly how I open and close my hand, but I believe I can do it. Of course, this is something I can see, but when Jesus was confronted by someone who didn’t believe until he saw, Jesus didn’t belittle him for his weak faith, send him away from the table, or accuse him of disobedience. Jesus said, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.”

That’s the kind of Savior I can believe in. Someone who doesn’t belittle me for being a doubting Thomas, but gives me the evidence I need. Although I ask many questions, I also defend the Church against attacks when I hear them. I do it by addressing the questions as honestly as I can, and saying “I don’t know” when I really don’t know, then I go research it by reading, asking priests, asking on this forum, etc. I think it is only Christlike to take their objections seriously, treat them with dignity, and answer them as honestly as possible.

Alan

 

[The_Augustinian]

Certainly there’s a time and place for everything. This thread is about the “perils” of dissenting. There are thousands of websites, besides this one, which discuss the issues that you and many other Catholics disagree with.

The point I and others are trying to make is this:
To be Catholic is to believe in X.
But some Catholics do not believe in X.
Thus, some Catholics are engaged in performative contradiction.

Now, perhaps you might interpret this as a fault of mine, but I have a very rationally-oriented mind. A system, any system, has to be, must be consistent with itself. To contradict this system is not to be fully part of it. So, I demonstrated the perils of taking a position of a seemingly trivial issue, like the Assumption. Now, some might say, like Alan, that they don’t see the relevance of such a doctrine. Well, at the very least, it is a truth, and since God is Truth, all truth is oriented towards Him. We can discuss the importance of this truth somewhere else; what is important in this case is the implications of accepting or not accepting the truth.

“Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere.” This is important. Obviously we ought to, as Christians, believe at the very least in the Nicene Creed. And as Catholics of whatever bent, we believe that there is a hierarchy with some kind of authority. Now, all authority ought to be followed so far as it comforms with the truth. So, how much does the Catholic Church comform with the truth? And where is that line that we should not cross, where Rome is spoken and the debate finished? That’s the question that all Catholics, orthodox and heterodox should answer.

Is the Church protected by the Holy Spirit in a special way? And, if so, how? And from where does the Church get its authority? These, too, are questions that every Catholic, indeed every person, should answer.

So, I ask you Catholics: if you think God gave the Church authority, is it also not necessarily true that He also gave them protection from error as well? Otherwise, His Church would be totally useless. What do you think?

In Christ,

The Augustinian

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The Augustinian:

We can discuss the importance of this truth somewhere else; what is important in this case is the implications of accepting or not accepting the truth.

Dear Augustinian,

I am sorry this thread isn’t panning out the way you wanted. I thought we were debating whether papal infallibility exists, or whether it logically follows from papal authority, and that was directly related to your question, if not part of it.

Is the Church protected by the Holy Spirit in a special way? And, if so, how? And from where does the Church get its authority? These, too, are questions that every Catholic, indeed every person, should answer.

OK, this is as direct as I know how to be in answer to your questions. In fact, I’ve never thought these thoughts before so please forgive me if I decide to retract them an hour from now…

Right offhand, I believe Jesus gave His Spirit to all of us. I don’t believe that going to a seminary, taking a vow, and wearing certain types of clothing necessarily means you are more or less spirit-led than somebody who doesn’t do that. That said, I have respect for their training and their vocation and experience, and believe that makes priests and other church officials, on the average, much more in tune with spiritual matters than an “average Joe.” That said, I know at least one priest who is very learned and well-respected but conducts himself in such a way that I suspect he is less spirit-led than some of the parishioners I know. OK, if there are people from my parish reading this, please be assured I am NOT talking about anyone who is or was a pastor or associate at our parish!

The Church gets her authority from two places. She got her heavenly authority from Jesus, who said something like “the gates of hell will not prevail against her.” She gets her earthly authority from her sheep. If nobody believed in her, or at least went through the motions of obeying her, then she would not have any authority on earth. Without the sheep, there would be no Church buildings, and all her priests and bishops would have to get jobs outside the Church to make a living.

So, I ask you Catholics: if you think God gave the Church authority, is it also not necessarily true that He also gave them protection from error as well? Otherwise, His Church would be totally useless. What do you think?

In short, NO. In post #102 above, I gave several examples of the difference between authority and infallibility.

I don’t think it renders the Church totally useless if she is right 99.999% of the time, 95% of the time, or 51% of the time. I say you shall know her by her fruits. Is she bringing peace to her faithful? Is she guiding young people on right paths? I know some children who really turned out well, and yet their parents didn’t claim to be perfect or feel the need to be thought of as such.

Personally I think the Church would do well to drop its claim of “infallibility” because I do think by claiming such a status she is putting herself on a pedestal, fosters idolatry, and invites dissention. OK, so she is Jesus’ bride. That’s all good imagery, but Paul also said it was disgraceful for a woman to speak in church.

I hope that hits closer to the issue you were trying to raise, and I apologize in advance if you find it disagreeable. You asked for opinions, and that’s what you got. (Feel free to throw the book at me now.)
Alan

 

[tTt]

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. that exist in our time. If these current attitudes persist, then I agree that the church as we know it will fall.Pat

Can you eloborate on your view of the above church attitudes.

 

[tTt]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear Augustinian,

The Church gets her authority from two places. She got her heavenly authority from Jesus, who said something like “the gates of hell will not prevail against her.” …

Personally I think the Church would do well to drop its claim of “infallibility” because I do think by claiming such a status she is putting herself on a pedestal, fosters idolatry, and invites dissention.
Alan

So the Church lead by Jesus’ authority can be wrong on issues of faith and morals. ???

Just get rid of the infallibility thing because it invites dissention.??

So when you and PatG spout this nonsense is that the Holy Spirit working in you?

UGHHH

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

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.”

Great post!!! Humility is key!! Truth is not relative to the believer, nor can it be changed by popular consensus. The whole world could agree to have the sum of 2+2 changed to 3 but it would still be 4. Truth simply is regardless of what individuals feel about it.

We need to simply trust that God knows what He’s doing and that he knows better than we do. We have to trust that he is faithfully guiding his church in upholding, protecting and defending the truth (1 Tim 3:15) even if that truth cramps our style. Truth does not require unanymous approval, only God’s.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[AlanFromWichita]

tTt:

So the Church lead by Jesus’ authority can be wrong on issues of faith and morals. ???

Why not? We are to believe that she cannot be wrong because she tells us she can’t be wrong? That doesn’t make sense, so let’s go to scripture. Do you disagree with me that people may have authority without being perfect? If not, then why would Jesus’ giving Peter authority automatically mean he’s always right on any given subject?

Just get rid of the infallibility thing because it invites dissention.??

No, not just because of that. Because it makes the Church our God, instead of our Shepherd.

So when you and PatG spout this nonsense is that the Holy Spirit working in you?

UGHHH

I’m sorry if your faith in God is so weak that it is threatened by the idea that the Church may sometimes be in error. I am similarly sorry that apparently you are repulsed because I don’t respond as you expect when I am asked for an honest opinion.

This is where it gets interesting. By “nonsense” I’ll take that as a verbal lashing, and I rejoice that I am worthy to suffer in the name of Christ.

I now answer you as Jesus answered the temple guard in John 18:23 “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?”
Alan

 

[tTt]

AlanFromWichita:

Why not? We are to believe that she cannot be wrong because she tells us she can’t be wrong? That doesn’t make sense, so let’s go to scripture. Do you disagree with me that people may have authority without being perfect? If not, then why would Jesus’ giving Peter authority automatically mean he’s always right on any given subject?
No, not just because of that. Because it makes the Church our God, instead of our Shepherd.
I’m sorry if your faith in God is so weak that it is threatened by the idea that the Church may sometimes be in error. I am similarly sorry that apparently you are repulsed because I don’t respond as you expect when I am asked for an honest opinion.

This is where it gets interesting. By “nonsense” I’ll take that as a verbal lashing, and I rejoice that I am worthy to suffer in the name of Christ.

I now answer you as Jesus answered the temple guard in John 18:23 “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?”

Alan

The Church doesn’t teach that the magisterium is automatically right on any given subject.

I don’t know of anyone that worships the Church as God.

Do I understand you?
Jesus = inerrant
Bible = inerrant Word of God
Magisterium = errant

How do we know the Bible is inerrant?
Who decides when the church is errant? Can you give an example?

 

[fix]

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!).

This is a concrete example of why so many faithful Catholics are scandalized by many who claim to be Catholic, yet reject the faith. Females cannot be priestesses and never will be. Now, like any article of faith, we are to accept and obey this teaching. Understanding is nice if we can, but we are called to accept it and obey it. To reject the Church’s authority in a matter like this is to reject the faith. If we reject even one teaching, we reject the entire faith.

Many times I have read the converts to the CC who had trouble accepting one teaching or another, finally they just accepted it and then God gave them the grace to see why the Church teaches as She does. Is not the point of all this to be obedient to Christ?

This all goes back to proper faith formation. The Church has failed to properly catechize folks. Our understanding of conscience is erroneous in most cases.

 

[The_Augustinian]

From the Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew:

Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father is who in heaven. And I say to thee, that Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I wll build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall also be bound in heaven: and **whatsoever **thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Jesus Christ is King of Heaven and Earth. How then, can earthly power to the Church, over which Christ is King, and which is subject to Heaven, be from any other source other than Him? I feel it is nonsense to separate “spiritual” and “earthly” power when speaking of the Church. To appeal to some kind of democratic Church is inherently Protestant, which is essentially what dissenters are, because they protest.

This is a huge stumbling block for some prospective converts. Encountering a Church unified in belief but not in practice scandalizes them, which is a tragedy. I certainly neither have the experience nor presumption to say what the necessary solutions are, but problems are certainly as clear as day and night. Do we want a Church that changes with the world, or a Church that *changes *the world?

I don’t know the causes for dissent. Perhaps it is residual Protestantism for converts, the ambient Protestant and secular society, scrupulosity, bad experiences with leaders of the Church, or perhaps, I must admit, an honest disagreement with accepted Church teaching, as mistaken as it is. Or perhaps it is all these factors and more. You are free to believe what you want. As for me, I will serve the Lord in His Church!

In Christ,

The Augustinian

 

[fix]

The Augustinian:

From the Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew:

Jesus Christ is King of Heaven and Earth. How then, can earthly power to the Church, over which Christ is King, and which is subject to Heaven, be from any other source other than Him? I feel it is nonsense to separate “spiritual” and “earthly” power when speaking of the Church. To appeal to some kind of democratic Church is inherently Protestant, which is essentially what dissenters are, because they protest.

This is a huge stumbling block for some prospective converts. Encountering a Church unified in belief but not in practice scandalizes them, which is a tragedy. I certainly neither have the experience nor presumption to say what the necessary solutions are, but problems are certainly as clear as day and night. Do we want a Church that changes with the world, or a Church that *changes *the world?

I don’t know the causes for dissent. Perhaps it is residual Protestantism for converts, the ambient Protestant and secular society, scrupulosity, bad experiences with leaders of the Church, or perhaps, I must admit, an honest disagreement with accepted Church teaching, as mistaken as it is. Or perhaps it is all these factors and more. You are free to believe what you want. As for me, I will serve the Lord in His Church!

In Christ,

The Augustinian

Auggie,
I know you have read the phrase error has no rights. We certainly are free to reject the Truth, but we have no such right. We only have the right to do what is good.

Can we agree that if we speak of non Catholics that is an entirely different situation than if we speak of those in the Catholic Church who reject Church, Christ’s, teaching? Those who claim to be Catholic, yet speak of rejecting this truth or that truth really are under a different obligation.

Catechesis has been lacking, as admitted by the bishops, this last 40 or so years. Now, I can understand someone in good faith not being able to comprehend some teaching, but to reject the authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals in most cases cannot be anything other than pride. The factors you mention are all true to some degree, but in the end we each are obligated to learn the faith to the degree we are able and to accept the Church teachings, whether we agree or understand them. This constant battle and nuancing of Church teachings by many does not seem like an attempt to be submissive to Christ, rather it seems to be a method to justify rejection of Christ’s teachings.

It seems absurd to claim to be Catholic, but only as one self defines the faith, not as Christ defines it.

 

[The_Augustinian]

I completely agree. I most certainly am not interested in justifying dissent. Rather, I am interested in what factors are implicit in shaping the “dissident mind” if it can be called that.

Certainly error has no rights; I was merely paraphrasing Joshua. They are free in the sense that they are free from being coerced into believing against their will.

In Christ,

The Augustinian

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The Augustinian:

Jesus Christ is King of Heaven and Earth. How then, can earthly power to the Church, over which Christ is King, and which is subject to Heaven, be from any other source other than Him? I feel it is nonsense to separate “spiritual” and “earthly” power when speaking of the Church. To appeal to some kind of democratic Church is inherently Protestant, which is essentially what dissenters are, because they protest.

Are you referring to my comment that the Church gets its authority from its followers? If so, I didn’t mean that the followers democratically decide the rules. I meant that if nobody listens to the Church, then she has no authority on earth whatsoever. This seems axiomatic to me. Without followers, there would be no Church. The shepherds could have implants that allow them direct thought-communication with Jesus in heaven, but they still wouldn’t have a job if there were no sheep buying into it, or at least going through the motions. A religion, political movement, terrorist group, or any other organization can have plenty of “authority” on this earth in terms of its ability to get things done, and all this without necessarily being right with God. On the other hand, God doesn’t do anything on this earth that I know of, except through His people.

Consequently, regardless of how right the Church is, if she drives away all the sheep, she cannot feed them. It behooves her to listen to what dissenters are saying and adjust accordingly. I’m not saying she should change her beliefs in faith and morals, but she should at least listen to what they are saying, as opposed to blaming people like me who stay with the Church, defend her, but ask questions internally about what really matters and what doesn’t. If you don’t like that idea coming from me, listen to some bishops saying the same thing. Please refer to an excellent article at the Vatican web site on the New Age movement, that YinYangMom posted in another thread. The authors of this article clearly believe the Church should look in the mirror and see why these people are seeking out weird, ungodly means of finding fulfillment. Find it at vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html

It’s rather long, so I’ll point you to one area in section 1.5

The success of New Age offers the Church a challenge. People feel the Christian religion no longer offers them – or perhaps never gave them – something they really need. The search which often leads people to the New Age is a genuine yearning: for a deeper spirituality, for something which will touch their hearts, and for a way of making sense of a confusing and often alienating world. There is a positive tone in New Age criticisms of “the materialism of daily life, of philosophy and even of medicine and psychiatry; reductionism, which refuses to take into consideration religious and supernatural experiences; the industrial culture of unrestrained individualism, which teaches egoism and pays no attention to other people, the future and the environment”.(8) Any problems there are with New Age are to be found in what it proposes as alternative answers to life’s questions. If the Church is not to be accused of being deaf to people’s longings, her members need to do two things: to root themselves ever more firmly in the fundamentals of their faith, and to understand the often-silent cry in people’s hearts, which leads them elsewhere if they are not satisfied by the Church.

<continued…>

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The Augustinian:

This is a huge stumbling block for some prospective converts. Encountering a Church unified in belief but not in practice scandalizes them, which is a tragedy. I certainly neither have the experience nor presumption to say what the necessary solutions are, but problems are certainly as clear as day and night. Do we want a Church that changes with the world, or a Church that changes the world?

We want a Church that changes the world. She must change with the world to accomplish that. Certainly there are teachings on faith and morals that are eternal, but in practice she must understand the ways of the world and adjust her practices accordingly.

I don’t know the causes for dissent. Perhaps it is residual Protestantism for converts, the ambient Protestant and secular society, scrupulosity, bad experiences with leaders of the Church, or perhaps, I must admit, an honest disagreement with accepted Church teaching, as mistaken as it is. Or perhaps it is all these factors and more. You are free to believe what you want. As for me, I will serve the Lord in His Church!

Amen to that! You serve the Lord your way, I’ll serve Him mine. I will not say to you, “I don’t need you” because we all have our roles, and all make up one body.

That said, you may wonder how I think I’m serving the Church with all this disagreement. I have always considered genuine criticism of myself as an act of love, unless it is presented sarcastically or as a put-down. I cannot see myself from the outside, and I need feedback to avoid making a fool of myself sometimes. Is it a friend or an enemy that tells you that you have egg on your face so that you can wash it off and not go around making a fool of yourself all day? Similarly, if I see things that the Church is doing that leads little ones to stumble, or perhaps a better strategy to help guide them, I am no friend to her if I keep it to myself.

Alan

 

[The_Augustinian]

Certainly, Alan, I agree that the Church ought to be flexible in a sense, in order to deal with the changing world. That’s what the Second Vatican Council was all about–the Church adjusting to the modern world. However, even if we do change, it will only be to “become all things to all men”. We cannot, we will not, change the truth, because we have no authority to change the truth. That’s the essence of the authority of the Church. The reason the Church is so stubborn on some issues is because she believes that she has the duty to protect the truth, and her authority is built around that. We shouldn’t think of the Church as the maker of truth–that is God’s province. However, the Church is the reciever of truth, and when we question certain things the Church does, we’d better be careful that we not reject the truth as well.

That’s the reason I was attracted to the Church, for it is founded upon the Rock of Truth, not the shifting sand of the Zeitgeist. In the face of the Enemy, perhaps a year from now, perhaps a few centuries, God only knows, when we face our Final Judgement, what will happen to all those groups who fled from the Barque of Peter to swim in the world currents? May God have mercy, is all I can say.

I also believe in a Church that listens. Indeed, the Church has always listened. That’s why she convened all kinds of councils, some local, some ecumenical, in order to give an answer to those who question her. Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians, Lutherans, Modernists, Post-Modernists–The Church has responded, and must respond to all of them. However, that does not mean that everyone will like the answer. And that’s what mainly bothers me about those who dissent within the Church, because the Church has responded with all kinds of documents, and the dissenters, instead of humbly assenting, or just leaving to become Episcopalians or Lutherans or whatever, keep on shouting and yelling. Listening is a two-way street. The Church has always listened to her challengers. When will they listen to the Church?

In Christ,

The Augustinian

 

[RBushlow]

AlanFromWichita:

. . . . if nobody listens to the Church, then she has no authority on earth whatsoever. This seems axiomatic to me. Without followers, there would be no Church. . . .
Consequently, regardless of how right the Church is, if she drives away all the sheep,

The problem is, Jesus did not equivocate. When he said “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you”, virtually all of His followers decided, “this is a hard saying” and left Him. He did not change what he had said to accomodate them.

Jesus did not set up the Church as a popularity contest. Being the one with the most adherents is not what matters. We don’t to keep correct and Orthodox teaching, not just give the public what it wants and we’ll be popular. That way leads over the abyss.

 

[fix]

The Church has always listened to her challengers. When will they listen to the Church?

Amen. Very good. When indeed? The Church has listened, responded and still many will not accept. Pride keeps us from the truth all too often.

 

[trogiah]

The Augustinian:

From the Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew:

Jesus Christ is King of Heaven and Earth. How then, can earthly power to the Church, over which Christ is King, and which is subject to Heaven, be from any other source other than Him? I feel it is nonsense to separate “spiritual” and “earthly” power when speaking of the Church. To appeal to some kind of democratic Church is inherently Protestant, which is essentially what dissenters are, because they protest.

This is a huge stumbling block for some prospective converts. Encountering a Church unified in belief but not in practice scandalizes them, which is a tragedy. I certainly neither have the experience nor presumption to say what the necessary solutions are, but problems are certainly as clear as day and night. Do we want a Church that changes with the world, or a Church that *changes *the world?

I don’t know the causes for dissent. Perhaps it is residual Protestantism for converts, the ambient Protestant and secular society, scrupulosity, bad experiences with leaders of the Church, or perhaps, I must admit, an honest disagreement with accepted Church teaching, as mistaken as it is. Or perhaps it is all these factors and more. You are free to believe what you want. As for me, I will serve the Lord in His Church!

In Christ,

The Augustinian

This issue of dissent and how to make sense of it is difficult. I think Jesus knew this. I don’t think it is coincidence that, immediately following the passage from Matthew that you quoted, Jesus is telling Peter he is Satan because Peter tries to talk him out of facing his crucifixion. Makes a person wonder why he just gave the keys to the Church to Peter.

But he did.

In Matthew, chapter 5, Jesus says “Those who fail to keep the law and teach others to do the same shall be called least in the kingdom of God.” This doesn’t sound particularly good but apparently a person is not kicked out of God’s kingdom for not keeping the law, or even teaching others not to do so.

I am certain, as we all should be, that every human, every saint, pope, bishop, and priest and all the rest of us, falls short of complete understanding. Scripture as well as experience tells us this.

And yet the office of the Church is clearly something to be respected.

What sense to make of if all.

I accept the teaching of the Church that women are not allowed to be priests, not because it really makes sense to me, but because it is the teaching of the Church. If I were ever in a position to question the Pope on the matter (very unlikely I am sure), I would ask for further clarification or ask if the rule could be reconsidered.
Not being in that position, I don’t think it serves a usefull purpose to publicly criticise the Church for this rule. Unity is to important a thing to toss aside just to vent my own outrage.

I hope that I might be able to listen to someone else that does need to express that outrage.

This approach to dealing with controversial teachings of the church is the best I can come up with at this time.

There is no greater good than Unity among those who seek God’s kingdom -the kingdom that Jesus came to tell the world about. That is a fact that I hope we can continue to focus on even as we debate with each other.

-Jim