Which is worse or better?

[fix]

Oh Fix, quit feeling sorry for yourself. So I and others dare say or think that Christ may exist outside the Catholic Church, I know you feel that’s not possible. I and others feel differently and we challenge you on that. Deal with it! Lord knows, we get enough grief from you and some others on this forum for thinking the way we do.

Everybody is seeking the Truth. Some feel they have found it in the Catholic Church, some in the Baptist Church, some in the Lutheran Church and so on, and many are still searching.

Remember, where 2 or more gather in my name, I (Christ) will be there. I don’t remember that passage mentioning a Catholic Church only.

I was attempting to be humorous, but I was making a point. It seems you think there can be no certainty in these matters. It really is about faith and reason.

As for two or more gathered yes, but that does not ensure infallibility. Only through the Catholic Church do we have that guarantee.

Also, as I have asked you many times before how can all “denominations” claim to have the truth when they all contradict each other? Note I am not saying they cannot have some aspects of the truth, but how may truth contradict truth?

 

[Orionthehunter]

Many folks like you and others are afflicted with “blind” faith, which isn’t bad per say, but you accept what is fed you without ever questioning anything. I say questioning, not defying, there is a difference.

I and many others I think, on the other hand, have faith with a little common sense mixed in. IOW, take Scripture for example, much of it may not be historically accurate, but the message that God is trying to convey is there (common sense). With the Popes, some were not sterling examples of what Popes should be, some we’re not sure were even legitimate, which means apostolic succession could’ve been at times temporaily broken, that is entirely believable (common sense). However, from Peter to now, overall, with possibly some hiccups, apostolic succession is intact. No argument.

I could go and on with other examples, but I think I’ve made my point (whether you think so or not).

I mean’t no offense, but I stand by my statement. BTW, I wasn’t slandering anybody, just offering my opinion on something, so let’s not be overly dramatic. By questioning, I don’t mean seeking more knowledge about certain Church doctrines or teachings, I mean looking at a certain teaching and maybe questioning it’s validity or looking at certain scripture and maybe interpreting it differently than what the Church says.

I stand corrected on Apostolic Succession. After further checking, your definition is correct. :bowdown2:

Mike, let’s look closely at what you said.

“Many folks like you and others are afflicted with “blind” faith”- You addressed this comment to Tantum. She responded to you that she doesn’t have blind faith. She probes her disagreements until she finds them to be reconciled. This is faith with common sense. To just reach a conclusion of “I believe this” and the “Church believes this” so I’ll just agree to disagree is faith with nonsense. Faith requires one to believe that Christ came to teach and convert hearts. To just “agree to disagree” means you believe you have reached the end of your journey and know all you need to know. This is total nonsense. It also has definite air of arrogance.

“accept what is fed you without ever questioning anything”: At the risk of being repetitive, Tantum gave an example of specifically telling how she questioned. But you “stand by your statement.” This is what is scandalous. She specifically addressed your point and you just ignored her and restated your charge.

 

[Eddy]

Mike,

Only half answering the question, but still!

I’ve just finished reading ‘Why I Am Still a Catholic: Essays in Faith and Perseverence’ edited by Peter Stanford. I’d heartily recommend it. It has essays by a wide range of people including Cherie Blair (Tony’s wife) and Dermot O’Leary (a well known TV personality in the UK - who incidently is VERY handsome ). I’ve found it helpful because it’s given me an insight into the ‘real’ church. The church of ordinary people. Granted the UK church has a very different feel than that of the US, but I have found so many echoes of my own position. If you do get hold of it, there’s a particularly beautiful essay called ‘This Peculiar Marriage’ which contains the wonderful words:

‘Each time I attend Mass, I am called to ‘grow in love with’ the Holy Father, the cardinal, all the bishops and the rest of the hierarchy, not to mention the universal Church, which means entering into communion with a sizeable amount of people who are doing everything they can to denigrate and destroy my identity as a gay man. Yet what the Mass offers in place of that potentially bitter reality is an intimation of the kingdom of heaven where even sworn enemies forget their differences and meet in love. It is the holiness that can spring up out of the most barren and broken of landscapes which is the new song that the psalmist invites us to sing as one’.

While I’m not a gay man, I can understand his sentiment. Cardinal Newman’s once said ‘conscience is nearer to me than any other means of knowledge’, and apparently used to famously toast his drinking companions with ‘My conscience first! The Pope second!’. To me, that makes a whole lot of sense.

Anyhow, it’s a wonderful book, which I’ve found a real breath of fresh air. If you’d like more details about it, PM me.

 

[Eddy]

I saw this reported today:

guardian.co.uk/italy/story/0,2002186,00.html

Now, I’d first say, I think this is an absolutely terrible abuse of the Sacrament of Reconciliation - and an unfair treatment of the priests concerned. Such is much of the media.

However, it does seem to say something about how some priests answer your question Mike.

 

[fix]

Cardinal Newman’s once said ‘conscience is nearer to me than any other means of knowledge’, and apparently used to famously toast his drinking companions with ‘My conscience first! The Pope second!’. To me, that makes a whole lot of sense.

Yes, he did say that. He did not intend it as you seem to imply though.

…Newman was concerned about the Ultramontane claims of extreme infallibilists, facetiously explaining that if the Pope told the English bishops to order their priests to work for teetotalism or to hold a lottery in each mission, they would not be obliged to do so. Here he is addressing a situation in which Popes issue orders – not moral teaching – that exceed their authority. Newman would of course believe that confronted with Church teaching, we all have the obligation to form and inform our consciences by that. But there is no doubt also that his understanding of conscience is very specifically Christocentric and God-centred, within the Catholic tradition…

Newman also explains elegantly why conscience is “the highest of all teachers, yet the least luminous”. It is because “the sense of right and wrong, which is the first element in religion is … so easily, puzzled, obscured, perverted … so biased by pride and passion, so unsteady in its course”. He was completely correct.

Neither would Newman have hesitated to reject the notion that any secular notion of conscience has primacy. Might he claim that a proper notion of Christian conscience does have primacy? Would this be a primacy of honour or a primacy of jurisdiction or no primacy at all?

He is typically precise and limited in his claims, pointing out that conscience is “not a judgement about any speculative truth”, but “bears immediately on conduct, something to be done or not done”…

sydney.catholic.org.au/Archbishop/Addresses/2005920_1841.shtml

 

[Eddy]

Yes, he did say that. He did not intend it as you seem to imply though.

Funny, I’ve read theologians who would disagree with Pell. I’ve not read a great deal on Newman, but I’ve friends who have, and I’m not sure they’d agree with Pell’s view. Which is fair enough. Pell’s entitled to his view, as are you.

 

[fix]

Funny, I’ve read theologians who would disagree with Pell. I’ve not read a great deal on Newman, but I’ve friends who have, and I’m not sure they’d agree with Pell’s view. Which is fair enough. Pell’s entitled to his view, as are you.

Well, the view that counts is the magisterium.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

Truth is always superior to conscience. I cannot understand the notion one may claim to have a properly formed conscience if they refuse to be obedient to the teachings of the Church?

 

[Eddy]

Well, the view that counts is the magisterium.

That’s fine Fix. I really don’t want to argue with you - I’ve had this debate, at length, on other threads. I disagree with you - as do the majority of Catholics in the Western world - but as the author I quoted earlier said, I’m called to seek to grow in love with you, and you with me.

And all I really wanted to do was express my response to Mike’s original question.

 

[fix]

That’s fine Fix. I really don’t want to argue with you - I’ve had this debate, at length, on other threads. I disagree with you - as do the majority of Catholics in the Western world - but as the author I quoted earlier said, I’m called to seek to grow in love with you, and you with me.

And all I really wanted to do was express my response to Mike’s original question.

I think it is related to Mike’s OP.

In fact, in thinking about the OP he even asks about one’s perspective on the issue implying we need to make a moral determination. He asks what is better or worse…

If I follow your reasoning we should give him an answer based on majority opinion? Or the opinion of some scholar?

 

[mikew262]

Mike,

Only half answering the question, but still!

I’ve just finished reading ‘Why I Am Still a Catholic: Essays in Faith and Perseverence’ edited by Peter Stanford. I’d heartily recommend it. It has essays by a wide range of people including Cherie Blair (Tony’s wife) and Dermot O’Leary (a well known TV personality in the UK - who incidently is VERY handsome ). I’ve found it helpful because it’s given me an insight into the ‘real’ church. The church of ordinary people. Granted the UK church has a very different feel than that of the US, but I have found so many echoes of my own position. If you do get hold of it, there’s a particularly beautiful essay called ‘This Peculiar Marriage’ which contains the wonderful words:

‘Each time I attend Mass, I am called to ‘grow in love with’ the Holy Father, the cardinal, all the bishops and the rest of the hierarchy, not to mention the universal Church, which means entering into communion with a sizeable amount of people who are doing everything they can to denigrate and destroy my identity as a gay man. Yet what the Mass offers in place of that potentially bitter reality is an intimation of the kingdom of heaven where even sworn enemies forget their differences and meet in love. It is the holiness that can spring up out of the most barren and broken of landscapes which is the new song that the psalmist invites us to sing as one’.

While I’m not a gay man, I can understand his sentiment. Cardinal Newman’s once said ‘conscience is nearer to me than any other means of knowledge’, and apparently used to famously toast his drinking companions with ‘My conscience first! The Pope second!’. To me, that makes a whole lot of sense.

Anyhow, it’s a wonderful book, which I’ve found a real breath of fresh air. If you’d like more details about it, PM me.

Thanks! I’ll look it up.

 

[setter]

Mike,

Only half answering the question, but still!

I’ve just finished reading ‘Why I Am Still a Catholic: Essays in Faith and Perseverence’ edited by Peter Stanford. I’d heartily recommend it. It has essays by a wide range of people including Cherie Blair (Tony’s wife) and Dermot O’Leary (a well known TV personality in the UK - who incidently is VERY handsome ). ** I’ve found it helpful because it’s given me an insight into the ‘real’ church. The church of ordinary people.** Granted the UK church has a very different feel than that of the US, but I have found so many echoes of my own position. If you do get hold of it, there’s a particularly beautiful essay called ‘This Peculiar Marriage’ which contains the wonderful words:

'Each time I attend Mass, I am called to ‘grow in love with’ the Holy Father, the cardinal, all the bishops and the rest of the hierarchy, not to mention the universal Church, which means entering into communion with a sizeable amount of people who are doing everything they can to denigrate and destroy my identity as a gay man. Yet what the Mass offers in place of that potentially bitter reality is an intimation of the kingdom of heaven where even sworn enemies forget their differences and meet in love. It is the holiness that can spring up out of the most barren and broken of landscapes which is the new song that the psalmist invites us to sing as one’.

I find that this reads like a bunch of sentimental blarney. The only basis for laying aside differences in a communion of persons is adherence to the teachings of the Church in matters of faith and morals. Anything else is illusionary and biting at the bit of warm fuzzy, hand holding, kumaya emotionalism. May these authors spare subjecting the faithful to such treatment.

As Jesus proclaimed about the kingdom of heaven:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10: 34

“From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force.” **Matthew 11:12 **

“You are my friends if you do what I command you.” John 15: 14

While I’m not a gay man, I can understand his sentiment. Cardinal Newman’s once said ‘conscience is nearer to me than any other means of knowledge’, and apparently used to famously toast his drinking companions with ‘My conscience first! The Pope second!’. To me, that makes a whole lot of sense.

An uninformed, uneducated conscience is a poorly formed conscience.

**1784 **The education of the conscience is a lifelong task.(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

 

[mikew262]

An uninformed, uneducated conscience is a poorly formed conscience.

In the Catholic Church’s opinion.

A person who happens to be a Methodist may be very well informed and educated on the teachings of Christ in their mind, and have accepted him 100% heart and soul. A person like that has a pretty clear and formed conscience to me. Who is to say this is not pleasing to God? Not I.

 

[setter]

In the Catholic Church’s opinion.

A person who happens to be a Methodist may be very well informed and educated on the teachings of Christ in their mind, and have accepted him 100% heart and soul. A person like that has a pretty clear and formed conscience to me. Who is to say this is not pleasing to God? Not I.

An erroneous or poorly informed and educated conscience is not entirely or at all pleasing to God. Culpability is another matter. The Catholic Church contains the fullness of faith and means for salvation. Pray for the conversion and salvation of our separated protestant brethren.

 

[mikew262]

An erroneous or poorly informed and educated conscience is not entirely or at all pleasing to God. Culpability is another matter. The Catholic Church contains the fullness of faith and means for salvation. Pray for the conversion and salvation of our separated protestant brethren.

And only God truly knows whose consciences are poorly informed and educated and which ones aren’t.

I assure you, many Protestants pray for the salvation and conversion of us Catholics.

 

[MilesXpisti]

And only God truly knows whose consciences are poorly informed and educated and which ones aren’t.

I assure you, many Protestants pray for the salvation and conversion of us Catholics.

But those people aren’t in the Church, mike. They may or may not enjoy an imperfect communion, but that does not legitimize their theology as being the Truth, or even a large portion of it. There can be no denial that God loves all of His creations. But His mercy is subject to His justice, and His justice is governed by His eternal law. Are we to say that Protestants, and even some outside even informal communion with the Church are to be saved? Yes, some shall, for this is a teaching of the Church. But make no mistake, it is not God’s justice, which measures our fidelity to the faith, that saves them but His mercy, borne of their ignorance. And this ignorance, I sincerely believe, has withered away in this age where the truth can be gained in every corner of the world.

If we say that all Christianity is equal, that Protestantism in any form is equal to the Church, we espouse heresy. Pure and simple. If it is not, then it is the incomplete truth and Christ meant himself to be the whole Truth for all men. Not the truth found in the anti-Chalcedonian east, not the truth found in the Orthodox, having decayed into ethnic and national Churches with no solid communion to be had. And certainly it is not Protestantism, which believes only that Christ is the redemption of man, something even the fallen angels believe. Pray for the conversion of our Protestant brethren, pray that God’s mercy spares them, though have no great hope as said Blessed Pius IX, but do not tell them that their truth is part and parcel with our and affirm them in the sins of their fathers.

 

[Eddy]

I find that this reads like a bunch of sentimental blarney… Anything else is illusionary and biting at the bit of warm fuzzy, hand holding, kumaya emotionalism. May these authors spare subjecting the faithful to such treatment.

I’m sorry you feel that way. But sometimes a bit of warmth, and admitting to the emotional side of our faith can be a good thing. If Jesus didn’t produce an emotional response in my life I’d be very worried - I’d doubt it was a relationship at all.

An uninformed, uneducated conscience is a poorly formed conscience.

And is anything, other than the reading of the RC Catechism worthy material for informing the conscience? Personally I’ve found the writings of Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King and several social science anti-poverty writers very helpful. I don’t have a problem allowing the CC to ‘inform’ my conscience, I just know that other things have a role too. And I firmly believe that a well informed, well educated conscience will not necessarily be in 100% agreement with 2000 years of Church teaching. And there’s many a Catholic priest, and Bishop, and theology academic in the same position.

To give an example, I know a priest who worked in South Africa for decades alongside people with AIDS - in a team of people made up largely of Catholic lay people and nuns. The experience strongly informed and educated his conscience. He came away with a very different understanding of some aspects of church teaching. I think the church should be listening to the experiences of those people - listening to the fruits of their education - and allow it to form church-wide conscience and thus teaching.

I know your answer will be that only things that are in keeping with the Magisterium are the proper conclusion to the informing and educating of a conscience, but that seems rather like deciding the conclusion of an experiment before you even begin it, or saying who will win a race before it starts. God gave us brains, and he gave EACH of us the Holy Spirit, and I think he expected us to use them - to the support of the church, not to its destruction.

And I really didn’t want to get into this discussion! I’ve way to much work to be getting on with today!

 

[MilesXpisti]

I’m sorry you feel that way. But sometimes a bit of warmth, and admitting to the emotional side of our faith can be a good thing. If Jesus didn’t produce an emotional response in my life I’d be very worried - I’d doubt it was a relationship at all.

And is anything, other than the reading of the RC Catechism worthy material for informing the conscience? Personally I’ve found the writings of Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King and several social science anti-poverty writers very helpful. I don’t have a problem allowing the CC to ‘inform’ my conscience, I just know that other things have a role too. And I firmly believe that a well informed, well educated conscience will not necessarily be in 100% agreement with 2000 years of Church teaching. And there’s many a Catholic priest, and Bishop, and theology academic in the same position.

To give an example, I know a priest who worked in South Africa for decades alongside people with AIDS - in a team of people made up largely of Catholic lay people and nuns. The experience strongly informed and educated his conscience. He came away with a very different understanding of some aspects of church teaching. I think the church should be listening to the experiences of those people - listening to the fruits of their education - and allow it to form church-wide conscience and thus teaching.

I know your answer will be that only things that are in keeping with the Magisterium are the proper conclusion to the informing and educating of a conscience, but that seems rather like deciding the conclusion of an experiment before you even begin it, or saying who will win a race before it starts. God gave us brains, and he gave EACH of us the Holy Spirit, and I think he expected us to use them - to the support of the church, not to its destruction.

And I really didn’t want to get into this discussion! I’ve way to much work to be getting on with today!

Aside from seeing several times where you place your opinion over the teaching of the Church and that social experience should define Church teaching in the post-conciliar age. But Our Lord said to not be conformed to the world, and to not forsake God’s law, even in the face of death for “he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved.”

God gave us intelligence, yes, but it is still intelligence that is wounded first by original sin and still more by concupescience. Intelligence that is informed by odience to the Church is a vast asset, not just in your life but in the evangelization of others. And God gave us the Paraclete, certainly, but to be a guide to the Church so that she alone will have the fullness of inerrant truth, not to give license to every soul to question the teachings of the Church. There is a word for this: Protestantism.

 

[fix]

I know your answer will be that only things that are in keeping with the Magisterium are the proper conclusion to the informing and educating of a conscience, but that seems rather like deciding the conclusion of an experiment before you even begin it, or saying who will win a race before it starts.

No way. It means Catholics have concluded Christ exists. That proof is a separate subject, but the starting point is He really exists and we accept what He said. He said He is the truth.

Once that is grasped it naturally follows that He is above all else. Our conscience must conform to Him. We do not invent truth. How do we then conform our conscience to Him? Apparently, from what you wrote you think it means majority opinion, or someone’s personal experience, or a scholar? We know Christ founded a Church. We know there is an unbroken chain since that time. How do you conclude it changed from when He founded His Church?

As far as the OP is concerned he asked for thoughts on whether it is better to stay in the Church or go to another. It would seem from what Christ said we must stay with His Church. It also must follow that to accept what He said includes forming our conscience in the manner He intends and that it conforms with reason.

 

[FCEGM]

No way. It means Catholics have concluded Christ exists. That proof is a separate subject, but the starting point is He really exists and we accept what He said. He said He is the truth.

Once that is grasped it naturally follows that He is above all else. Our conscience must conform to Him. We do not invent truth. How do we then conform our conscience to Him? Apparently, from what you wrote you think it means majority opinion, or someone’s personal experience, or a scholar? We know Christ founded a Church. We know there is an unbroken chain since that time. How do you conclude it changed from when He founded His Church?

As far as the OP is concerned he asked for thoughts on whether it is better to stay in the Church or go to another. It would seem from what Christ said we must stay with His Church. It also must follow that to accept what He said includes forming our conscience in the manner He intends and that it conforms with reason.

Yes, and this is precisely how the Saints “operate”, having spiritually matured past self-justifying lies. It’s quite easy to have the conceit to make oneself an exception to the rule of the obedience of faith based on one’s own opinion of oneself as having prayed, studied and thought rightly because of one’s sincerity. St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Jesus, to name only the most renowned, have both explicitly said that if anything they taught contradicted their Holy Mother the Roman Catholic Church, one was to go with the Church and not with their teaching; the Gospel says that if one does not even listen to the Church, treat as a one as an unbeliever, and the late John Paul II pointed out the error of making one’s conscience as the ultimate norm in matters of morality.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Which is worse or better, depending on your perspective, a Catholic who has some misgivings/non-acceptance about some Church teachings, but wants to remain a Catholic, or one who has changed to another Christian denomination where that person can more readily accept their teachings, and feels this is more true to God’s word?

Sorry for the “run-on” sentence. Please, no “heresy” attacks, or requests for specifics on misgivings/non-acceptance of Church teachings.

Respectful replies from both Catholics and non-Catholics are welcome. Opinions from folks who have faced this dilemma themselves will be more than appreciated.

I think this is the sort of issue that people have to decide for themselves: one’s person’s insurmountable difficulty may well be no problem at all for some one else. And even when people have much the same difficulties, they may very well put them together to make different overall pictures, so as to come to different conclusions about the resulting picture.​

Besides, people are people, not disembodied intellects What we do in making any one decision is to some degree the product of our whole preceding life. So people can have similar problems, but for very different reasons. And none of us is an island - we are affected in all sorts of ways by the people we have met, & by the environment (in the broadest sense) we move in: people are not Catholics & nothing else - they are parents, spouses, children, wage-earners (or not), citizens, voters (or not), & so forth.

For all these reasons & others, one cannot apply general principles in a unvarying way - to say “X is under all circumstances a sin” can be true without implying that a person involved in it is for that reason guilty. Not everyone has reached the age of moral responsibility. So a child of four who steps on a Host because it’s been dropped, is not necessarily in the same moral state as an ex-Catholic atheist who goes to Mass in order to find a Host to desecrate.

As to the question: someone who thinks the Church is primarily a club with rules is likely to answer it differently from somene who sees it primarily as a body. Members can be kicked out if they fiddle the accounts or insist on bringing their children even though this is not allowed - a body is different, because it is not a good idea to chop off the head for having chronic migraines. So one cannot always get rid of an unhealthy part of the body.

The problem is, that no single model says everything about the Church - it is not *merely *a body, or *merely *a perfect society, or army, or ship, or vineyard: it is comparable to all, exhaustible by none. It is greater than the sum of its models & its parts. So to think of it as “merely” a society with rules, is to think too lowly of it - important as rules are, they are relative to its purpose & character: relative, not absolute.

If people who are Christians are convinced as before God that they must do X, then it is wrong for them not do X. What complicates things is that conscience can be divided against itself - it is easy to be indecisive because of this. AFAICS, all one can do is, act according to the best of one’s available clear knowledge. Our best done with God’s help (recognised or not) is at least our best at that time in those particular circumstances, even though it may be very far from the best that we might in principle be able to do if we were better than we are at that moment.

This is far too long - sorry