What makes something dogma?

[lcalise]

I am totally, totally frustrated with liberalism in the church. I think the socialist ideals many catholics espouse are completely contrary to reason.

However, they use “social teaching” to justify overwhelming church functions and funds.

Now, how much weight must I give social teaching because I always thought it was the motivation for the common good that mattered (hence why am a proponent of limited government and free markets). Are the “social teachings” that broaden the term social justice to health care, housing, etc. dogma?

I am very confused, so could someone shed light on this?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Your religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals. You don’t get to wiggle out of submission to Church teaching simply because it is not “dogma.” Read Heb 13:17.

Consequently, whether it is dogma or not is irrelevent. What you should be asking is: Is this a teaching of the magisterium?

 

[lcalise]

itsjustdave1988:

Your religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals. You don’t get to wiggle out of submission to Church teaching simply because it is not “dogma.” Read Heb 13:17.

Consequently, whether it is dogma or not is irrelevent. What you should be asking is: Is this a teaching of the magisterium?

Ok, that doesn’t answer my question AT ALL. I know that certain things, like the JPII’s opinion on the death penalty, is not something that a Catholic needs to agree with to be in good conscience. (I would provide the link on catholic answers site, but it isn’t working for me now.)

And, if it’s not considered “dogma” (maybe I’m using the term wrong) then why should I have to believe it?

So to clarify, what elements of “social teaching” are things I have to believe, how much can I interpret, and how much is just opinion that I, as an thinking individual, can accept or refute?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Perhaps you can give an example of a magisterial teaching which you would like to dissent with.

The ordinary magisterium is exercised by your bishop so long he is acting in his scope of authority and is not contrary to the Roman Pontiff. He exercises his ordinary magisterial teaching in the following manner…

MAGISTERIUM, ORDINARY. The teaching office of the hierarchy under the Pope, exercised normally, that is, through the regular means of instructing the faithful. These means are all the usual channels of communication, whether written, spoken, or practical. When the ordinary magisterium is also universal, that is, collectively intended for all the faithful, it is also infallible.
(Fr. John Hardon, Pocket Catholic Dictionary)

You are also called to submit to the teachings of your pastor, insofar as he is acting in his scope of authority and is not contrary to his superiors.

Furthermore, you have the right to manifest your opinion in accord with *Lumen Gentium *37.

By reason of the knowledge, competence, or pre-eminence which they have, the laity are empowered—indeed sometimes obliged—to manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the good of the Church. If the occasion should arise, this should be done through the institutions established by the Church for that purpose, and always with truth, courage, and prudence, and with reverence and charity toward those who, by reason of their office, represent the person of Christ.

The laity should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church.

(Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, no. 37)

 

[threej_lc]

lcalise:

I know that certain things, like the JPII’s opinion on the death penalty, is not something that a Catholic needs to agree with to be in good conscience. (I would provide the link on catholic answers site, but it isn’t working for me now.)

…Could you continue trying? I strongly disagree with this statement, and I’d like to see CA’s reasoning for why they state it.

Josh

 

[lcalise]

I thought I did… even though I don’t really care, here’s one: the death penalty. To me, it sounds like you’re saying that you cannot ever disagree with anyone who is a pastor or bishop. If that is true, then I don’t see how I could be Catholic. We’d just be a bunch of sheep and the magesterium is just a body of power to control people.

 

[lcalise]

threej_lc:

…Could you continue trying? I strongly disagree with this statement, and I’d like to see CA’s reasoning for why they state it.

Josh

I still cannot get the site to work. If it works for you, then try searching “death penalty.” I think that is what I searched for and I clicked the first link.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Let’s look at this example, since you mentioned it…

I know that certain things, like the JPII’s opinion on the death penalty, is not something that a Catholic needs to agree with to be in good conscience.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

[2267](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2267.htm’) Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

This is certain teaching of the Catholic Church and is an exercise of the authentic magisterium. According to canon law and the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Genium 25:

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. (*Lumen Gentium, *25)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

lcalise:

I thought I did… even though I don’t really care, here’s one: the death penalty. To me, it sounds like you’re saying that you cannot ever disagree with anyone who is a pastor or bishop. If that is true, then I don’t see how I could be Catholic. We’d just be a bunch of sheep and the magesterium is just a body of power to control people.

Hmmmm… Christians … a bunch of sheep. Sounds about right. Exactly what I want to be…a lamb of God, where Christ and the lawful pastors of His Church are shepherds.

John 21:15-17 "[Jesus] said to [Peter], "Feed my lambs"…“Tend my sheep”…"Feed my sheep"

Hebrews 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

Titus 3:1 “Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient.”

 

[lcalise]

itsjustdave1988:

Hmmmm… Christians … a bunch of sheep. Sounds about right. Exactly what I want to be…a lamb of God, where Christ and the lawful pastors of His Church are shepherds.

John 21:15-17 "[Jesus] said to [Peter], "Feed my lambs"…“Tend my sheep”…“Feed my sheep”

Hebrews 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

Titus 3:1 “Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient.”

Ok, you know well that I meant sheep as a person who blindly follows. That is NOT a good thing and I think anyone who think it is gives religion a bad name.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

lcalise:

… sounds like you’re saying that you cannot ever disagree with anyone who is a pastor or bishop.

What is often pejoratively called blind or indiscreet obedience, may very well be a very reasonable obedience of faith, based upon charity toward Divine authority.

Dissenting with the lawful pastor of the Church when he is teaching in accord with the magisterium is contrary to canon law and the plenary power God has bestowed upon the Church.

St. Catherine of Sienna:

"For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil. (Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza)

According to the First Vatican Council (1870)

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

Pius IX:

And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church. (Denzinger 1698)

St. Pius X:

“If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him.* For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope*.” (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November against dissenting priests, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)

Pius XII:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is **obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. **(Pius XII, Humani Generis)

John Paul II:

***It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic,” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere.” ***(Pope John Paul II in his speech to the Bishops in 1987)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Gregory the Great, on obedience:

"obedience is rightly preferred to sacrifices, because by sacrifices another’s body is slain whereas by obedience we slay our own will." (Moral. xxxv)

The 15th century monk Thomas A’ Kempis in his book Imitation of Christ wrote of obedience and subjection as follows:

***It is a very great thing to live in obedience, to be under a superior, and not to be free to do as we please. ***

It is much safer to obey than to govern.

Many live under obedience more from necessity than from love, and such are discontented and easily complain. They cannot attain freedom of mind unless they willingly and heartily put themselves under obedience for the love of God.

Go wherever you will, but you will still find no rest except in humble subjection under the government of a superior.

St. Thomas Aquinas:

“We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Questiones Quodlibetales, IX:8).

I’m beginning to see a recurring theme here.

 

[lcalise]

itsjustdave1988:

St. Gregory the Great, on obedience:

The 15th century monk Thomas A’ Kempis in his book Imitation of Christ wrote of obedience and subjection as follows:

St. Thomas Aquinas:

I’m beginning to see a recurring theme here.

Thank God I don’t think you know anything or you would have successfully driven me from Catholicism.

And you still haven’t explained ANY of the questions I asked… Actually, I think you’d do better as a Muslim apologist than a Catholic one.

(Oh, and I know St. Thomas was for a limited government, so that goes back to my question about socialism in social teaching.)

 

[thistle]

lcalise:

Thank God I don’t think you know anything or you would have successfully driven me from Catholicism.

And you still haven’t explained ANY of the questions I asked… Actually, I think you’d do better as a Muslim apologist than a Catholic one.

(Oh, and I know St. Thomas was for a limited government, so that goes back to my question about socialism in social teaching.)

Why are you being so rude to the other posters? They have answered your questions and been very charitable considereing they way you have talked to them.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

lcalise:

Thank God I don’t think you know anything or you would have successfully driven me from Catholicism.

And you still haven’t explained ANY of the questions I asked… Actually, I think you’d do better as a Muslim apologist than a Catholic one.

(Oh, and I know St. Thomas was for a limited government, so that goes back to my question about socialism in social teaching.)

Of the two of us, I am the only one to quote Dogmatic constitutions, canon law, the Catechism of the Church, magisterial texts, and saints and doctors of Catholicism. If you disagree with them, then perhaps you should do some soul searching on your own. Obviously, it isn’t Catholic teaching that you are looking for.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

lcalise

By the way, I’m conservative.

But I’m also a catechist, and a working toward an MA in Theology, so I’m pretty confident as to what is and is not binding upon the faithful, as I’ve been studying Catholic theology for a many decades now, longer than you’ve even been alive.

 

[lcalise]

itsjustdave1988:

lcalise

By the way, I’m conservative.

But I’m also a catechist, and a working toward an MA in Theology, so I’m pretty confident as to what is and is not binding upon the faithful, as I’ve been studying Catholic theology for a many decades now, longer than you’ve even been alive.

Yet, you’ve never explained ANYTHING…

What is binding? You say every opinion.
What can we think on our own? You say nothing because obediance is paramount.
What is spoken ex cathedra? Everything uttered from any pope’s mouth, by your statments.

And regarding the death penalty, I know that I am not required to think it needs to be abolished like JPII. If you think otherwise, then PLEASE show me why… maybe by then Catholic Answers will be back online.

Also, the reason I think you’d make a better Muslim apologist is because they emphasize submission without reason too…

 

[lcalise]

itsjustdave1988:

lcalise

By the way, I’m conservative.

But I’m also a catechist, and a working toward an MA in Theology, so I’m pretty confident as to what is and is not binding upon the faithful, as I’ve been studying Catholic theology for a many decades now, longer than you’ve even been alive.

Also, I really do not appreciate the smiley faces. I am having a real crisis of faith here and you put stupid icons. Nice. If it seems like I’m being rude, I know I am. I am completely frazzled so I hope you can forgive me.

And quoting the Bible and people is great except without context they are meaningless. Also, you can justify Protestantism with quotes from the Bible so you need more than that. See where I’m going?

 

[Loboto-Me]

Icalise, it seems that the only thing that could help you is prayer to The Holy Spirit. Humans from CAF can’t necessarily cure the crisis of faith that you’re enduring at the moment, without you allowing the Holy Spirit to carry you through. No matter what answers people give you, no matter what you read, it may not be satisfactory until your resign yourself to His Grace and Spirit.

 

[lcalise]

To Everyone-

I’m sorry. I apparently am not making clear what my questions are otherwise you would not contend that you have answered them.

I know and believe that the Catholic Church is the “right one.”
I know that there are certain things that the Church teaches infalliably, and I am obliged to follow that.

However, I am unsure what things are said ex cathedra (what I thought was what ‘dogma’ implied, correct me if I’m wrong) and what are just the opinions of church leaders who, being human, have their own opinions that can be flawed.

Here are the excerpts from Catholic Answers that ignited this struggle: (Source: catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp)

"You can be a good Catholic and think that the death penalty should be done away with entirely, and you can be a good Catholic and think that it should be applied more often than “rarely.”
You are not bound in conscience to adopt one position over the other. You are free to make your own prudential determination–but you are not free to say that someone whose prudential determination differs from yours is therefore a “bad Catholic.”

  						(As a side point, I should note that the opposition of the majority of the 							American bishops to the use of capital punishment is not binding on the 							faithful, since national bishops' conferences, as such, are not part of the 							magisterium.)

  						Dunnigan notes that "Catholics are obliged to give 'a religious submission 							of the intellect and will' to the ordinary magisterium, but this duty 							attaches only to doctrines and teachings of the Church. This same duty of 							submission does not attach to the mere prudential judgments of the Church's 							pastors.

So I wanted to know where I can find out what things are different and how to make that distinction.

I hope this helps and that you all can forgive my shrewishness from before. Stressful times… no excuse, but I’m sorry.