Would you take a vow of fidelity to the Magesterium?

[Bobby_A.Greene]

estesbob:

If a Catholic politiciaqn finds their political beliefs to be in conflict with the doctirnes of the Church they should leave the Church. It has nothing to do with the separation of Church and State nor does it have anything to do with the Church getting involved in politics. If you want to be a Catholic you follow the teachings of the Church. There simply is no other alternative.

The separation of Church and state is the alternative. Thank God for the U.S. Constitution and thank God for Catholicism.

The lack of alternatives from your absolute statement is an attitude shared by fundamentalist Muslims.

 

[Catholic2003]

estesbob:

I am not sure what you are getting at here. What teachings are you talking abou?. If you are talking about Church Teachings on abortion, homosexuality, female ordination , euthansia, etc I would say that those who oppose them should be considered as less devoted or non-catholics. Surely you are not of the opinion we can pick and choose which Doctrines we wnat to follow and sttill consider ourlseves Catholic.

The Church teaches that someone who has been baptized as a Catholic (or someone who has been received into the Catholic faith after being baptized as a Christian) is still a Catholic even if they reject the teachings that you mention.

This leads to a Catch-22 situation for “holier-than-thou” Catholics.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

estesbob:

I am not sure what you are getting at here. What teachings are you talking abou?. If you are talking about Church Teachings on abortion, homosexuality, female ordination , euthansia, etc I would say that those who oppose them should be considered as less devoted or non-catholics. Surely you are not of the opinion we can pick and choose which Doctrines we wnat to follow and sttill consider ourlseves Catholic.

I’m talking about the teaching that I will be Catholic until the day I die, by virtue of my baptism which was done before I was old enough to pronounce “I will renounce him” so that others had to say it for me.

For some reason I can’t find it now, (maybe in the archives) but at least two apologists on this forum, as well as many more educated than I am in theology (which is most everybody here) have stated that even in cases of excommunication and renouncing the faith, once Catholic, always Catholic.

We may consider ourselves less than fully Catholic, but that doesn’t change the truth that we still are.

I agree, BTW, with Bishop Chaput , that the Church may indeed need to get smaller . The last thing the Church needs to do is water down its teachings and doctrines in the interest of “inclusivness”

I agree the Church should not water down her teachings and doctrines for “inclusiveness.”

That doesn’t logically translate into encouraging “marginal” members to leave unless there is a concern that their existence will force the Church to change her teachings. Since the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and not subject to popular vote on doctrine, I do not share the concern that these people are a threat. They are more like tests for the rest of us.

In Protestant churches, these members would pose a threat because they can vote their preachers out of office and get one who will tell them what they want to hear. In the Catholic Church, we who are strong in faith should not fear them on behalf of the Church which will never bow to their demands, nor judge them as if their sin is “worse” than any of ours. More public in some cases (and therefore subject to censure), but worse?

Alan

 

[Shoshana]

I would have never thought that such a simple question could cause such a diversity of responses… I must be naive…

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Shoshana:

I would have never thought that such a simple question could cause such a diversity of responses… I must be naive…

When you get up to two thousand posts, I’ll let you in on the Secret Oath.

Hint: “anyone with the faith of a mustard seed can say unto this molehill, ‘thou shalt become a mountain’ and it will be so.”

 

[Shoshana]

Well, Alan, I will hold you to that, OK?

 

[estesbob]

Bobby A. Greene:

The separation of Church and state is the alternative. Thank God for the U.S. Constitution and thank God for Catholicism.

The lack of alternatives from your absolute statement is an attitude shared by fundamentalist Muslims.

You are close ro being right-to separate oneself from the Church if you do not believe in its doctrines and teachings is the alternative.

You comment about those who support the Church’s teachings as being akin to fundamentalists Muslims is tripe.

 

[estesbob]

Catholic2003:

The Church teaches that someone who has been baptized as a Catholic (or someone who has been received into the Catholic faith after being baptized as a Christian) is still a Catholic even if they reject the teachings that you mention.

This leads to a Catch-22 situation for “holier-than-thou” Catholics.

So what is your definition of a holier than thou catholic???

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

You comment about those who support the Church’s teachings as being akin to fundamentalists Muslims is tripe.

Then I am glad I never said nor wrote that those who support the Church’s teachings as being akin to fundamentalist Muslims.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

estesbob:

So what is your definition of a holier than thou catholic???

For this purpose, I’m guessing it would be a Catholic who claims to be Fully Assenting, and therefore has more right to the claim “Catholic” than another sinner who maybe doesn’t share the same Mental Assent.

 

[Catholic2003]

estesbob:

So what is your definition of a holier than thou catholic???

A holier-than-thou Catholic is someone who looks down upon Catholics who reject Church teachings as being non-Catholic.

The Catch-22 is that by doing so, the holier-than-thou Catholic puts himself (or herself) in the same boat as those he (or she) looks down upon.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Catholic2003:

A holier-than-thou Catholic is someone who looks down upon Catholics who reject Church teachings as being non-Catholic.

The Catch-22 is that by doing so, the holier-than-thou Catholic puts himself (or herself) in the same boat as those he (or she) looks down upon.

Congrats on your post #2,000!

Yippee! Hooray!

And what a great post it was…

:dancing:

Alan

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Shoshana:

I would have never thought that such a simple question could cause such a diversity of responses… I must be naive…

Me too.

Nancy

 

[mlchance]

Catholic4aReasn:

Nothing. Apparently you aren’t one of the cafeteria/cultural Catholics I was referring to.

Well, let’s say I am. What good would a vow do? If someone is bold enough to stand before Christ Himself present in the Eucharist and lie to God, what good would some sort of new vow do?

I also can’t help but be reminded about what Christ said about vows: Don’t swear them.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Yikes! This was a hypothetical “what if”. Guess some people can find controversy in anything.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Shoshana]

mlchance:

I also can’t help but be reminded about what Christ said about vows: Don’t swear them.

– Mark L. Chance.

And what about our vows when we marry??? when we become a priest or a religious???

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Definitely YES. Anyone up for a petition

PF

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Catholic4aReasn:

Yikes! This was a hypothetical “what if”. Guess some people can find controversy in anything.

In Christ,
Nancy

Hypotheticals are the most fun, because then we can each try to twist the argument in whichever direction hastens it toward our personal pet peeves and baggage issues.

If there is an actual situation at hand, then I can be accused of Going Off Topic more easily; this way I have to get “way out there” before a similar accusation can be made and upheld!

Alan

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

porthos11:

IF it were required to be Catholic, I’d gladly take it.

IF IT WERE NOT, and that is the present-day case, no. Vows should never be taken unless absolutely necessary.

There are some offices, which even lay persons can assume in the Church, which require the signing of a profession of faith. So it can be required, in certain circumstances.

FYI,

Gerry

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Gerry Hunter:

There are some offices, which even lay persons can assume in the Church, which require the signing of a profession of faith. So it can be required, in certain circumstances.

FYI,

Gerry

In our diocese, as I understand it, even lay persons who are running teaching ministries, such as those who help prepare candidates for confirmation, must sign an agreement that they will not go against Church teachings.

I don’t believe they are actually promising to Mental Assent, but at least they are promising that within the context of their service using Church property (I think even if it is private usage maybe) they will not teach contrary to the Church.

So when we come on Church property and act as teachers, then we are expected to uphold her teachings.

I have no problem with a pledge of that sort. It is fair, I believe, especially considering the heterodoxy that people are intentionally introducing wherever they can. It does not cause a problem for me theologically because I’m pretty sure this is under local jurisdiction and does nothing to judge my heart, but binds my actions to acceptable limits on Church property.

Alan