Who Believes in the Unity of the Church?

[jim28]

Who believes that all Catholics must believe exactly the same way and have the exact same beliefs?
This, in order to actually be Catholic.

 

[thistle]

Who believes that all Catholics must believe exactly the same way and have the exact same beliefs?
This, in order to actually be Catholic.

Your question is actually not clear. Maybe you could reword it.

ALL Catholics must accept ALL the teachings (doctrines and disciplines) which are summarised in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[EasterJoy]

Who believes that all Catholics must believe exactly the same way and have the exact same beliefs?
This, in order to actually be Catholic.

Your belief does not make you a Catholic. Like it or not, baptism makes you a Catholic.

The Church teaches that once you’re baptized, you are a Catholic and you remain a Catholic until you make a formal, rather than an actual, departure. You are, for instance, bound to observe canon law in order to enter into a valid marriage, even if you never attend Mass and believe nothing the Church teaches, but have not formally left the Church.

Your premise, then, is internally inconsistent, as it would require Catholics to believe everything the Church teaches in order to be Catholic, while at the same time believing something other than what the Church teaches about what is required to be a Catholic.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Who believes that all Catholics must believe exactly the same way and have the exact same beliefs? This, in order to actually be Catholic.

I think I understand your question, or at least I understand a very similar question because I’ve given it a lot of thought.

What, one might ask, is the value of unified belief as opposed to divergent opinion that characterizes Protestantism?

What is the value of delegating your beliefs to an authority as opposed to following (or forming) your conscience?

And, since you posted this in “Traditional Catholicism”, what is the value of tradition in forming beliefs as opposed to investigating questions anew?

Much hinges on how you view the question of uncertain truth and to what extant you believe that the Catholic Magesterium is guided by the Holy Spirit in its deliberations. According to the traditional Catholic view, the Catholic Church is privy to the truth and so what value could there be in deviating from that truth?

But if truth and Catholic dogma are not necessarily identical then a whole host of questions arise.

 

[passus]

It depends: beliefs on what?

For the most part, that would be a ridiculous thing for anyone to believe.

In matters of theological speculation or areas in which the Church intentionally leaves leeway for personal interpretation and for individuals to adopt their own meanings, such diversity is good. Now, it may be that there is objectively more support for certain positions or that subjectively, people find certain positions more convincing but if the Holy See hasn’t formally taken a side, then we’re free to do so!

The same thing does not apply with patently laid out dogmas and doctrines of the Church, however. Those have been formally and infallibly defined and one would be denying the truth (and in some cases, liable to heresy) for choosing a position explicitly contrary to the Church’s teaching.

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

To quote the Nicene Creed, “I believe in one, holy catholic and apostolic Church…”

I am using the capitalization as used by the common English usage.

Yes I believe in the Unity of the Church.

 

[jim28]

I just ask this because there is no unity in beliefs of the people I know who call themselves Catholic. Especially on the Defined Dogmas.

A couple of other questions:

Must a Catholic believe that abortion is sinful?

If a person who calls himself Catholic believes in Abortion, is that person still inside the Church?

 

[thistle]

I just ask this because there is no unity in beliefs of the people I know who call themselves Catholic. Especially on the Defined Dogmas.

A couple of other questions:

Must a Catholic believe that abortion is sinful?

If a person who calls himself Catholic believes in Abortion, is that person still inside the Church?

A Catholic CANNOT be in favour of abortion. A Catholic supporting abortion is rejecting the Church teaching and would be committing heresy.
Catholicism and abortion are incompatible.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

A Catholic CANNOT be in favour of abortion. A Catholic supporting abortion is rejecting the Church teaching and would be committing heresy.
Catholicism and abortion are incompatible.

Am I correct that this means they are Catholic just a heretical Catholic? This stands to reason since material heresy is common. As Easter Joy posited upthread it’s Baptism that makes us Catholic.

 

[bilop]

Am I correct that this means they are Catholic just a heretical Catholic? This stands to reason since material heresy is common. As Easter Joy posited upthread it’s Baptism that makes us Catholic.

Correct.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

A Catholic CANNOT be in favour of abortion. A Catholic supporting abortion is rejecting the Church teaching and would be committing heresy.
Catholicism and abortion are incompatible.

I don’t mean to defend abortion but unless you are claiming that supporting abortion invalidates baptism then your claim is unfounded. A heretic is still a Catholic no matter how much teaching he rejects.

That said, it is interesting to note that Catholic faith is exactly the belief in the infallibility of the magesteriam. That is necessary and sufficient. It is necessary because it is a matter which requires faith, it cannot be demonstrated otherwise. And it is sufficient because if you believe that then you have a logical reason to believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches, you have no reason to reject anything the Catholic Church might claim to be true.

Everything else is just details.

 

[pnewton]

Am I correct that this means they are Catholic just a heretical Catholic? This stands to reason since material heresy is common. As Easter Joy posited upthread it’s Baptism that makes us Catholic.

There are also many areas that have not been defined by the Church that one is free to disagree with fellow Catholics on. I guess the one unifying thing that we have, besides our Baptism which we have in common with non-Catholic Christians, is our authority structure under our shepherd, Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I don’t mean to defend abortion but unless you are claiming that supporting abortion invalidates baptism then your claim is unfounded. A heretic is still a Catholic no matter how much teaching he rejects.

The problem is that, as other threads have, I believe, begun to discuss, one can “be” Catholic on various different levels, and the ineradicable Catholicity said to be conferred by baptism does indeed have limits - the Church ends, for instance, at the gates of hell. Just like schism, then, heresy cuts someone off from the body of the Church, so we can truly say that heretics are not Catholics.

As Fr. Hardon put it in very simple terms: “By the time of St. Jerome (342-420), the word became fixed to designate a group cut off from the Church by reason of heterodox doctrine, as distinguished from schism which separated through disobedience to hierarchical authority.”

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Who believes that all Catholics must believe exactly the same way and have the exact same beliefs?
This, in order to actually be Catholic.

Catholics must believe exactly those things proposed by the Church as needing to be held with divine faith, which can be done either through the extraordinary magisterium or the constant witness of the ordinary magisterium (the so-called universal magisterium). The absolute imperative of unity ends there. The Church also recognizes various areas that are open - at least until we get a better grasp of them - to legitimate theological disagreement.

 

[redrosetea]

A Catholic CANNOT be in favour of abortion. A Catholic supporting abortion is rejecting the Church teaching and would be committing heresy.
Catholicism and abortion are incompatible.

It certainty is thistle…thous shall not kille is a commandment not a suggestion

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The problem is that, as other threads have, I believe, begun to discuss, one can “be” Catholic on various different levels, and the ineradicable Catholicity said to be conferred by baptism does indeed have limits - the Church ends, for instance, at the gates of hell. Just like schism, then, heresy cuts someone off from the body of the Church, so we can truly say that heretics are not Catholics.

You can say it but that does not make it true.

 

[selylidne]

I just ask this because there is no unity in beliefs of the people I know who call themselves Catholic. Especially on the Defined Dogmas.

A couple of other questions:

Must a Catholic believe that abortion is sinful?

If a person who calls himself Catholic believes in Abortion, is that person still inside the Church?

1. As other people noted previously, a person becomes Catholic when baptized Catholic and does not cease to be Catholic until they formally apostatize.
2. A Catholic who rejects defined dogmas is a heretical Catholic. A Catholic who rejects Church teachings that haven’t been formally defined is a dissenting Catholic but not a heretic.
3. A Catholic who rejects the Church’s moral teaching that abortion is sinful is in dissent and in serious error, but is not committing heresy or apostasy.
4. It is usually bad to dissent, but not always. A good example is limbo. Not long ago, it was dissenting against Church teaching to disbelieve in limbo. Now it is dissenting against Church teaching to insist on limbo. A moral example is usury. A few hundred years ago, the Church considered taking any interest whatsoever to be gravely sinful, and to reject that moral teaching would have been serious dissent (and, even though the person rejecting that teaching was right, to go ahead and take interest probably still would have been a sin of scandal).
5. A Catholic may reject Church teachings that haven’t been formally defined, but only after long, careful, full, fairminded study of the issue. To reject a teaching for reasons like “It just seems wrong to me” or “I can’t understand it” or “That’s not what I read” would be grossly negligent and a sin. Due to this requirement for a well-formed conscience, when you come across a dissenting Catholic, you’re probably better off assuming they haven’t put in the study and made an informed critical decision, and you should feel free to inquire after their reasons!

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

You can say it but that does not make it true.

St. Robert Bellarmine, doctor Ecclesiae, contends that* “*this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. . . . ] he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others;”

and, dealing with the question of the character (of baptism): “Against this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, “in actu,” united to the Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her “in actu,” for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated “in actu” from the Church. Therefore, the character does not make the heretic be “in actu” in the Church, but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united “in actu” to Christ, but only potentially - and St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas the character alone does not unite a man, “in actu,” to Christ.” (De Romano Pontifice II.30).

Now, obviously, the opinion of one doctor does not dogma make, but I hope you can see from St. Robert and the patristic authorities he cites on his behalf that this is neither simply my pipe dream nor a disreputable theological opinion.

I hope to be able to contribute further in this vein tomorrow.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

St. Robert Bellarmine, doctor Ecclesiae, contends that…he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian,

If a heretic is not a Christian then that means he can’t go to confession and therefore cannot be absolved of his sin of heresy.
If a heretic is nto a Christian then he is not a heretic, he is just a non-Christian. And, for that matter, do infants profess to believe in CC dogma? If not, they are not Christians either and baptism is pointless.

The problem boils down to the inherent sloppiness of using “Catholicism” for double (or more) duty.

In any case, I think selylidne covered it pretty well.

Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold it ought to be brought back.

By this analogy, when a sheep becomes lost it loses its brand and becomes indistinguishable from sheeps of other folds.

Interestingly, you ignored my second paragraph where I made this exact disctinction. I’ll save you the trouble of finding it by repeating it here again:

That said, it is interesting to note that Catholic faith is exactly the belief in the infallibility of the magesteriam. That is necessary and sufficient. It is necessary because it is a matter which requires faith, it cannot be demonstrated otherwise. And it is sufficient because if you believe that then you have a logical reason to believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches, you have no reason to reject anything the Catholic Church might claim to be true.

Everything else is just details.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

By this analogy, when a sheep becomes lost it loses its brand and becomes indistinguishable from sheeps of other folds.

Your understanding of the analogy runs directly contrary to Bellarmine’s explanation. He says that the sheep remains branded - it has a mark that says to which fold it belongs - but through its wandering ceases to be within the fold. He is not arguing that heresy effaces one’s baptism; in fact, he maintains that the baptism leaves an enduring mark. Instead he is saying that heresy places one outside of the Church, and that those outside of the Church are not Catholics.