What if someone in RCIA doesn't accept all of the Church's teachings?

[Dovekin]

are you saying that, in your view, dogma and only dogma cannot be disagreed with, or dissented from? That doctrine which does not rise to the level of dogma, is free game? Some doctrines but not others?

The profession of faith asked of people joining the Church says just that:

I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.

There are dogmas, which we believe and are proclaimed to be revealed by God. Other doctrines are taught by the Church but are not covered by this profession.

Ad Tuendam Fidem from St John Paul II in the 1990s created a profession of faith for Church’s teachers and some other workers that categorizes what must be believed (dogma), what must be held (other infallible teaching), and what must be respected (everything else). The doctrinal commentary on ATF goes into some detail, though it does not give an exhaustive list.

The Church consistently and authoritatively teaches many things that, strictly speaking, are not dogma. Doctrine can develop and become more refined, but it cannot change from X to non-X. True cannot become false.

Whether doctrine can change from X to non-X is often a matter of perspective; X can sometimes appear to be non-X, but is not. This is why Benedict XVI proposed a hermeneutic of reform rather than a hermeneutic of continuity as the antithesis of the hermeneutic of discontinuity. Reform includes discontinuities and continuities together on different levels.

The example the Pope used was religious freedom, which changed dramatically after WW2. He placed earlier statements in the context of the martyrs who were executed by the State in part for asserting freedom of religion. That assertion was in no way the target of earlier teachings on religious freedom!

SSPX still seems to think the teaching on religious freedom went from X to non-X. There is some validity to that position, but the faith of the martyrs is the faith of the Church. The teaching on religious freedom may not be part of that faith, but that faith is a norm for us.

 

[neophyte]

I did not say it was an objection.

You said that it was simplistic. It was simple, certainly, but not at all simplistic. It absolutely comprehended everything you pointed out afterwards, and while your response didn’t contain a phrase like this is an objection it certainly had the characteristics of one.

 

[stpurl]

I understand your concern, but the fact is that there are only two types of sin, sin which is mortal (kills one’s relationship with God) and sin which is not-mortal, I.e. venial (does NOT kill one’s relationship with God).

There aren’t three types. Sin either is serious enough to destroy your relationship with God, or it isn’t.

It’s like being pregnant. You either are, or you aren’t. There isn’t a third category (and no, hydatidiform mole where a woman’s HCG rises like a pregnancy, but the cells and tissue either were fetal and became non viable, or they were not fetal and so the woman was not pregnant. IOW, the molar pregnancy either was a false pregnancy or it was a pregnancy which ended in the fetus becoming non viable. There was no stage where the woman was neither pregnant or non pregnant, but ‘something in between’.

Sin is either mortal, or it isn’t.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

So are you saying that, in your view, dogma and only dogma cannot be disagreed with, or dissented from? That doctrine which does not rise to the level of dogma, is free game? Some doctrines but not others? Where would you draw the line? And why?

Draw the line where the Church does in its definition.

And where is that?

A rejection of any of these is a rejection of the Church herself. There are other precepts which present a bar to communion with the Church, as a matter of canon law, like unlawful marriage. Also, unrepentant mortal sin (living together in a sexual union outside of marriage)would be a bar. On the other hand, disbelieving the Catholic doctrine on capital punishment would not, or at least, I did not deem it so. For one thing, there was no action on my part that was immoral based on this doctrine. Likewise, not believing some of doctrines of Mary that have not been defined as dogma do not require any action under threat of sin ( like the Mediatrix/Co-redemptrix concepts). One is not in a state of grace or not depending on one’s ability to understand these.

I really don’t disagree with anything you say here. As far as capital punishment is concerned, the Church’s doctrine is “the death penalty is allowed as a just punishment for capital crimes, where no other alternative is possible”. The Church has determined that in the modern world, there are always alternatives. This is not a “change in the Church’s doctrine”. It is the Church’s considered judgment on the state of modern society and its capacity securely to incarcerate and to rehabilitate capital criminals (to the extent the latter is possible). That is what the world assumes, and what the progressivist “change agents” would like everyone to think, because then, the camel’s nose is under the tent, so to speak, and other disliked doctrines and moral teachings could be called into doubt, to say “one day the Church will change that teaching we don’t like, because look, she changed the teaching on capital punishment, didn’t she?”. The Marian doctrines are a bit fuzzier. What is the binding force of believing that Our Lady is the Mediatrix of All Graces? The Co-Redemptrix? Are those pious beliefs, commonly held opinions, or what?

I guess, one can simply assent (whatever that means) and not believe or disbelieve, but that is a little to close to intellectual dishonest for me.

I can live with that ambiguity, in the name of obedience to, and trust in, Our Lord, and fidelity to His Church’s magisterium. As a practical matter, I just tell myself that I’m not as smart as I think I am, and that the Church knows best, even if I can’t see the logic of it.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The profession of faith asked of people joining the Church says just that:

I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.

So are you asserting that only dogmas and infallible teachings must be believed, and everything short of these must be respected, but only “respected”, if the person doesn’t agree with it? And what about the ordinary infallibility of the magisterium? Do you admit the existence of this?

Whether doctrine can change from X to non-X is often a matter of perspective; X can sometimes appear to be non-X, but is not. This is why Benedict XVI proposed a hermeneutic of reform rather than a hermeneutic of continuity as the antithesis of the hermeneutic of discontinuity. Reform includes discontinuities and continuities together on different levels.

You say he “proposed” this. I’m not sure I can get on board with him here. Was he speaking just as a private theologian, or did he put the weight of the Church’s magisterium behind it? I’m not saying this, but a non-Catholic would say “that sounds like double-talk, to change the Church’s teachings and not have to admit you’re changing them”.

The example the Pope used was religious freedom, which changed dramatically after WW2. He placed earlier statements in the context of the martyrs who were executed by the State in part for asserting freedom of religion. That assertion was in no way the target of earlier teachings on religious freedom!

The way I heard it put (by, IIRC, a writer for Catholics United for the Faith or CUF), “error has no rights, but people do”. I would rephrase this as “error has no rights, but people have not only a right, but an obligation, to pursue the truth, even if their search leads them to error through no fault of their own”. And religious freedom cuts both ways. The Church is entirely in the right, to oppose secular regimes that would deny their citizens freedom to follow Christ, or to follow any other religion for that matter.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I understand your concern, but the fact is that there are only two types of sin, sin which is mortal (kills one’s relationship with God) and sin which is not-mortal, I.e. venial (does NOT kill one’s relationship with God).

There aren’t three types. Sin either is serious enough to destroy your relationship with God, or it isn’t…
Sin is either mortal, or it isn’t.

I would be interested to know when, where, and how the bifurcation of sin into two classes, mortal and venial, first arose. I will freely acknowledge that I have wondered, even if the sinner fulfills all three conditions (mortally sinful matter, sufficient reflection, full consent of the will), if there is any way there could be enough love of God, or grace, or whatever, in that person, to allow them to fall short of eternal damnation. As much of a hardnose as I am about this sort of thing, I really, really, would like to find a “way out” for all but the most hardened and impenitent sinners (and for that matter, even them, because hell is forever). I don’t want anyone to go to hell, even if they choose to live in mortal sin. But I’m not the One who makes that call.

These simple words of wisdom from my favorite short adult catechism, Life In Christ (the 1958 edition with an imprimatur from Cardinal Spellman):

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Dovekin]

Ad Tuendam Fidem from St John Paul II in the 1990s created a profession of faith for Church’s teachers and some other workers that categorizes what must be believed (dogma), what must be held (other infallible teaching), and what must be respected (everything else). The doctrinal commentary on ATF goes into some detail, though it does not give an exhaustive list.

I am repeating this because I do not recognize it in your summary of it. There are 3 categories, not 2. So no, I am not saying anything like what you wrote. Respect was shorthand for a “religious submission of the will and intellect” if that helps.

This is a description of canon law’s requirements for a profession of faith by the Church’s teachers. I think it allows for the ordinary infallibility of the magisterium. It would be very odd if it did not. Why do you ask that question?

You say he “proposed” this. I’m not sure I can get on board with him here. Was he speaking just as a private theologian, or did he put the weight of the Church’s magisterium behind it? I’m not saying this, but a non-Catholic would say “that sounds like double-talk, to change the Church’s teachings and not have to admit you’re changing them”.

This was in Benedict XVI’s 2005 Christmas greetings to the Curia. I have no idea what magisterial weight you want to give it; I think it should be accepted as most reasonable approach without regard for authority of it. It allows honesty about changes in teaching, without recourse to the “double-talk” so often used to say teaching has not changed.

“error has no rights, but people do” Is an example of that kind of double-talk. It does not admit that there has been a change in teaching. Benedict XVI instead acknowledges that reform includes both change and continuity. He is clear and honest.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

This is a description of canon law’s requirements for a profession of faith by the Church’s teachers. I think it allows for the ordinary infallibility of the magisterium. It would be very odd if it did not. Why do you ask that question?

Because it wasn’t clear to me. Now it is.

It allows honesty about changes in teaching, without recourse to the “double-talk” so often used to say teaching has not changed.

“error has no rights, but people do” Is an example of that kind of double-talk. It does not admit that there has been a change in teaching. Benedict XVI instead acknowledges that reform includes both change and continuity. He is clear and honest.

Then I would like to hear the Church clearly say “teachings of the Church can and do change, and they can even change from X to non-X, and this is why”. I would like to hear the Church say “for instance, teaching X was always wrong, and now we teach non-X, which is right now, and which was right then, but we just didn’t know”. I just hate to see people given the impression, then, that this teaching, or that teaching, that is difficult to adhere to, or to accept, or that a lot of people disagree with, may change in the future, so just give it time, the Church “will come around one of these days” (and in the meantime, go ahead and do what you see fit, because in dubio libertas). Would we then see massive petition drives to change Church teachings that are widely rejected by the people — “changethatteaching.org”?

One thing I will concede, is that there are levels of belief, levels of certainty, depending upon the doctrine or teaching under consideration. Fr Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is very valuable for making these distinctions, and if I were organizing the affairs of the whole world, this volume would be in every Catholic home.

“error has no rights, but people do” Is an example of that kind of double-talk

I just read it in a CUF publication many years ago, and thought it made sense.

This is a fairly widespread concept, attributed even to Pope Pius XII (!). A Google search turned up quite a bit.

www.google.com

(Type in “error has no rights but people do”, with quotation marks.)

 

[pnewton]

The Marian doctrines are a bit fuzzier.

Fuzziness is why I think a priest is best able to make the determination if the person does not believe, or refuses to believe; and whether the matter is one that must be believed, or not.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

The Marian doctrines are a bit fuzzier.

Fuzziness is why I think a priest is best able to make the determination if the person does not believe, or refuses to believe; and whether the matter is one that must be believed, or not.

I’ll go along with you there. Case in point: Our Lady as the Mediatrix of All Graces. Is it binding on all Catholics to believe this? Where did this come from? Who first proposed this concept? What does it mean, if one objects? Do we then say “all right, then, Mary is not the mediatrix of all graces, so exactly what graces does she not mediate?”. Truthfully, it’s not something I lose a lot of sleep thinking about. No disrespect intended, but I entrust my soul to Jesus, not to Mary. He is my focus — and He is His mother’s focus as well.