seeking understanding

[QuantaCura]

For those telling us to leave... where do you propose we go? If no other church is really the right fit for us, and we believe in Catholic dogma and faith... what do we do? Are you essentially telling us to shut up and agree or (possibly literally) go to hell?

I don't want anyone to leave nor do I want anyone to go to Hell. But I am trying to understand why some people choose to be Catholic, while not abandoning oneself to the Catholic faith completely.

I think however, I may be gaining some understanding--I'll write it out, and someone please correct me if I am still misunderstanding:

There seems to be a disconnect between the Church and God--whereas a traditional fundamental Catholic dogma is that the Church is not just a natural, human society, but that it has a supernatural and Divine component. As Loki explained earlier in the thread, she believes that the Catholic Church is not a timeless entity. We are trying our best, but we don't get everything right--we try hard to hand down God's plan for humanity, but we fail sometimes.

This is completely contrary to a very fundamental Catholic dogma, that despite the sins of her members, by the power of the Holy Spirit, God's revelation for us in its entirety will be handed down without corruption so that all men may have access to it--the sins of man will not stop His love. If we believe this, it becomes the most sensible thing to abandon ourselves to it, because it comes from God Himself--it would be truly wrong to disbelieve God who is perfectly all loving and all knowing, no?

But if we believe His revelation is dependent on the effort of sinful humans, then it makes perfect sense to simply reject things that seem unreasonable or unpalatable--it's perfectly fine to disagree with other human beings.

And I think this may be where the gulf is between people like myself and Catholics who embrace the kind of things that might be considered Liberal Catholicism. I think it has to do with the very natrue of the Church and the message. Sadly, this makes the gulf seem even wider than just a few points here and there

Does that make sense? Have I missed the point?

 

[JasonV]

I think I know where you are going with this QuantaCura. But is that type of linear thinking appropriate?

 

[QuantaCura]

I think I know where you are going with this QuantaCura. But is that type of linear thinking appropriate?

I honestly don't have any set destination I am trying to go here. My objective is to try and understand the nature of the Liberal Catholic position, since, as you can tell, I was (am still?) having a hard time with it. I offered above what I've gathered so far, so that is where I will be until someone corrects that understanding or adds to it.

But the more I think about it, if I had to pinpoint it, it really is the First Vatican Council (Dei Filius and Pastor Aeternus) that is at issue. I think Liberal Catholics are so close to Old Catholics because it is the teaching of those two texts that is considered problematic. Would you agree?

 

[JasonV]

But the more I think about it, if I had to pinpoint it, it really is the First Vatican Council (Dei Filius and Pastor Aeternus) that is at issue. I think Liberal Catholics are so close to Old Catholics because it is the teaching of those two texts that is considered problematic. Would you agree?

My friend, my denomination is two generations removed from yours. (RCC - Utrecht OCC - LCC/LCCI) This matter has frankly never been of concern to us. I am aware somewhat of the issues under consideration, but have not read Dei Filius and Pastor Aeternus. I would be happy to read them if you have a link handy, and discuss with my RCC friends the issues under consideration.

 

[Loki]

I believe that the church is a temporal entity, but that does not imply that I believe there is not revelation handed down through it.

The church is not eternal or perfect. God is. The Church is comprised of individuals who all fail in some way, and that is reflected from time to time.

 

[QuantaCura]

My friend, my denomination is two generations removed from yours. (RCC - Utrecht OCC - LCC/LCCI) This matter has frankly never been of concern to us. I am aware somewhat of the issues under consideration, but have not read Dei Filius and Pastor Aeternus. I would be happy to read them if you have a link handy, and discuss with my RCC friends the issues under consideration.

Oh, sorry about that --I didn't realize you were LCC. I just assumed from the faith icon you were OCC when you brought up 1870 (the year of the Council).

Here are is the brief texts promulgated by this Council
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

It was cut short due to war so the Second Vatican Council took up the task--it is also helpful on this topic--the key texts from that Council in regards to understanding the principle of the First are: Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium.

 

[QuantaCura]

I believe that the church is a temporal entity, but that does not imply that I believe there is not revelation handed down through it.

The church is not eternal or perfect. God is. The Church is comprised of individuals who all fail in some way, and that is reflected from time to time.

What you say here is definitely true --the issue is whether or not God's revelation is handed down in such a way where we can have confidence giving it supernatural faith despite sinful men.

From your perspective, is it subject to human tampering? If human beings could corrupt it over time, I could also agree that we would be free to simply disagree with what we felt were corruptions--we wouldn't have to receive it all on faith.

But, if it were true that human beings could not corrupt it, then we would be bound to accept it all on the authority of God Himself (in other words, on faith).

And I think this is where the root of my problem is. We simply hold to two different doctrines concerning Divine Revelation. My understanding was lacking because I was judging the Liberal conclusion by the more traditional premise, instead of by the Liberal premise.

Since this is not the appropriate forum for debating the actual truth of a position, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Loki]

It's always subject to the humans that it comes through. God doesn't communicate its intentions through zombies, and sometimes errors in direction occur. The Catholic Church has erred in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. The key is identifying where it errs and righting itself.

 

[QuantaCura]

I guess though, I am still left with my original conundrum : if one does not believe the Catholic faith is what the voice of the Church claims it to be, why embrace the Catholic faith (which I do pray everyone would fully embrace)?

And also, the question no one has really attempted to answer from the OP, why try to change the Church and faith?

 

[JasonV]

Since this is not the appropriate forum for debating the actual truth of a position, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I rather think it is. But it must be done respectfully for the liberals present. In other words, you cannot presume that yours is the correct position and put the posters here on the immediate defensive.

 

[QuantaCura]

It's always subject to the humans that it comes through. God doesn't communicate its intentions through zombies, and sometimes errors in direction occur. The Catholic Church has erred in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. The key is identifying where it errs and righting itself.

Right. And if that is the case, it makes sense why one could freely individually judge certain alleged truths, reject them, or seek to change them.

But I and others believe, that despite sinful and erroneous actions of her members, the "Mystic Body fo Holy Church" described by St. Catherine of Siena (not to be confused with the Mystical Body of Christ) is always Holy and spotless, and that it includes the Depositum Fidei. There should always be a purification, renewal, and reformation of souls, but the doctrine is what it is, it is not ours to try and "correct."

And this where the heated conflict happens--some folks want to change things that other folks cherish and believe unchangeable and would lay down their lives before changing.

 

[Loki]

I do believe it is what it says it is, but it is hindered by time, people, and imperfection, and there is no Platonic ideal form to which the Church should strive; there is no ideal historical time point when one could say "this is the full expression of the Church." Rather, it constantly must strive to be in accordance with the teachings of Christ, despite how the world may change. And the revelation isn't so clear as a burning bush or blood from a stone.

 

[Loki]

We must clarify if we mean the body of the Church being those who comprise the church or the clerical structure and dogma. I'm personally not familiar with those works, and I'm barely Catholic by anyone's standards, but I'm trying, and this seems to be what I understand from what few Church documents I've read (Lumen gentium, Deus Caritas est), and Kueng's _the Church_, which does bear the Nihil obstat and the Imprintatur.

Perhaps the expression of the body of the Church could be holy and spotless as comprised of all members called by God, but that doesn't imply that all that comes from individuals or small groups of individuals from that set of people is holy and spotless.

 

[Loki]

The doctrine is continually added to, clarified, amended; would give the midrash a run for its money

 

[RoseofLima]

I don't know if this will help you or not- but the Orthodox view of this is that the protection of the Holy Spirit extends to the whole Church. And if the Body in effect rejects the teachings of the Head...then it was a faulty teaching. It all happens over a long period of time-- but it's like if I woke up and declared I was running a marathon today- my body would not be able to carry out the directive of the head.

I dunno if that helps or not

 

[QuantaCura]

I don't know if this will help you or not- but the Orthodox view of this is that the protection of the Holy Spirit extends to the whole Church. And if the Body in effect rejects the teachings of the Head...then it was a faulty teaching. It all happens over a long period of time-- but it's like if I woke up and declared I was running a marathon today- my body would not be able to carry out the directive of the head.

I dunno if that helps or not

I know that. I've been round and round in circles with Orthodox people on that too in my investigation of their claims . It's problematic on a number of levels. a) which church-consciousness is right--one part of the body rejected the teaching of Chalcedon while the other part accepted it--thus schisming into two bodies (this happened with other Councils as well)--which body is right? b) dissenters from a Council were often excommunicated (usually by the Council)--so yeah, once you purge all the dissenters from your midst, then all that's left are those who agree anyway. The entire church-consciousness was never given a chance to accept it. The Council's said "believe this or you're out." And that was that--they didn't wait from ratification from the faithful. That theory is just not present and operative in practice. Likewise, most of the faithful just didn't care. Whole countries went back and forth between Arianism and orthodoxy for centuries, based simply on the religion of the king--the local churches in those countries usually just went along with it.

From what I can tell, this theory was basically developed to explain dissent from the re-union Councils. After Florence, all the monks basically riled up the faithful who then all spurned the returning bishops, making them out to be traitors. The bishops then recanted their agreement to the Council.

But anyway, that's for another forum....

 

[RoseofLima]

From what I can tell, this theory was basically developed to explain dissent from the re-union Councils

Either that or you have a linear neat thinking esentially Western brain (If you look now- all those particular issues are no longer an issue- it worked itself out)

 

[Fish and Bread]

I agree with Quanta. Maybe it's just my "essentially western brain" (I'm serious, not being sarcastic), but I just don't understand the Eastern Orthodox position on which councils must be accepted. It seems like under their own current theology, they should not accept more than four of the seven ecumenical councils that they do accept, and perhaps even less than four. And if we go on what seems to have been their past theology in an operative sense, then they should accept not only seven councils but also the Council of Florence and all subsequent councils (Which would make them Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome from Florence on). The figure of seven seems inconsistent with both the way they currently think and the way they operated in the past. I say all this with the disclaimer that it's quite possible I simply don't understand, though I am well read on the subject.

 

[JasonV]

On the flip side of that Fish, I have to appreciate the laity of the Eastern Orthodox churches who have reject Clerical decisions at counsels when they believed it was contrary "to the faith".

 

[Rebekka]

(I am responding to RebekkaH's post in particular, but I welcome and encourage everyone to respond to what I write--I think it applies to everyone else's posts as well while some things may be personal to her--she just did the best job of explaining )

Thank you RebekkaH for your response. I can tell it comes from the heart:

To me, it seems that you are truly struggling to understand an issue--you have not simply decided to stick with your own opinion or you have not simply declared the Church to be wrong. It does not seem you are going out of your way to read material that attacks Catholic teaching or that presents ideas and perspectives that are not compatible with it. You do not seem to happily set out to read well-known dissidents. And I appreciate the fact that you don't actively promote dissent from whatever point you are struggling with--in fact, all posts I have ever read from you have been edifying in all ways rather than undermining in any way. That shows true humility and charity.

As for agreeing with EVERY point, that's not what it's about. It's not about agreeing. Even if you agree with everything, all that amounts to is a nice coincidence. We believe because God is Love, and He can neither deceive nor be deceived, because He would only reveal and command things for our ultimate good because he is perfect love, not a fallen human being--he loves us perfectly with perfect knowledge of all things. And it is the most fundamental and important truth of the Catholic faith, that the Church, who's Head is Jesus Christ and whose Soul is the Holy Spirit, faithfully hands down what Our Father has left for us, so that we may all be enflamed by the fullness of His love--so that we may bring that love to all people in every nation for all of time. Even if I did not understand why a specific point that is handed down is good for me or for others, I would trust in God's love for us, that He knows better than me.

When Our Father spoke to Abraham and told Him to go sacrifice his only son, Abraham did not understand. He could have easily responded to God that His request was clearly unreasonable and that he couldn't see how that would help him--in fact, it seems only like harm. He could have accused God of not being compassionate. Abraham could have told Him that losing his only son would alter his life too much before he is ready. Our heavenly Mother, an unwed teenager, could have made the same protestation--I don't understand, I am not ready, this will change my life too much. But, like Abraham, she trusted in God's love. So did the Apostles and other saints and martyrs who were called to leave everything behind to follow Him. They did not say, I am not ready Lord. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnation of Love, rebuked a young man for that very sentiment. Our Lord Himself suffered terribly in the prime of life. This is what faith is. We all have weakness and we fall and we struggle to follow Jesus' call. But to say, "I am not ready" or "I have good reason to say no" instead of taking up our Cross, just seems so contrary to the spirit of Christ to me, to that responsibility we undertake by Our Baptism and Confirmation. I know it may be just one point, but its roots reach down to the very foundation of what it means to be a Catholic--that complete and unconditional surrender to God's love for us no matter how difficult it seems.

Yes, we are bound to conscience--but we must understand true conscience (CCC 1776-1802). One aspect of true conscience is that an erring conscience can be culpable for certain reasons--one of which, for a Catholic, is rejection of Church teaching (1792). The CCC also says something very beautiful (1785): "We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross." If our conscience conflicts with what has been taught by the Church, is it because our conscience is blameless, or is it because we are afraid of the Cross? Are we afraid of crucifying ourselves, of nailing our hearts to its foot? Are we afraid of such radical, selfless love?

I don't want anyone to leave the Church--physically, but most importantly, spiritually. I could never encourage anyone to remain spiritually separate. Again, you seem to be sincerely struggling to receive it all. But there are those who have chosen to reject certain articles of faith, to jettison them completely, or to desire to change them to be more "compassionate" or "reasonable." Even if rejection of such a point only directly results in the sin of error, it implicitly rejects that most fundamental dogma, rejection of which does separate oneself from the Church, even if that person still sits in a Catholic pew and does charity for Catholic organizations--because it is a sin against faith. And that is heartbreaking. Even St. Paul and St. John, the Apostle of Love, advise that some people need to leave for a little while--not to be mean to them or to do them harm, but for their own good and for the good of the rest of the Body so that they can return for the better. It is not for me, however, to determine who this applies to. But my trouble still remains:

If one in good conscience could not hold to that fundamental principle, conscience would demand not claiming to profess a faith that does accept it as unrenounceable. By remaining Catholic and in a state of incredulity, one remains in a lose-lose situation. Either his conscience is culpable for the incredulity or he is betraying his conscience by participating in something his conscience tells him is not right.

As I said, I do not want anyone to do anything but to be completely abandoned to God's love in the fullness of the Catholic faith. I want people to stay and struggle with points they do not understand--I want to provide whatever help I can. But as I said before, when there are religions with all the externals of Catholicism, where one is free to profess the entire Catholic faith, but where conscience is given the liberty to be incredulous on any point, I do not see how it can be anything but a betrayal of conscience to remain Catholic if one's good conscience says the Catholic faith is not what it claims to be. Again, I do not want anyone to go elsewhere, I just want to understand how anything good can come to one's soul in this contradictory position.

Thank you for your answer QuantaCura. I think that you may never understand and therefore agree with my position, but that's OK - at least with me; I can handle disagreements really well if there is respect on both sides (which is the case here).

Funny that you mention Abraham, because I have difficulty understanding why he did what he did. However, there's a difference between Abraham and me: God spoke directly to Abraham and not to me. If God told me directly to do something, I think I would do it too.

You said: "But to say, "I am not ready" or "I have good reason to say no" instead of taking up our Cross, just seems so contrary to the spirit of Christ to me, to that responsibility we undertake by Our Baptism and Confirmation. I know it may be just one point, but its roots reach down to the very foundation of what it means to be a Catholic--that complete and unconditional surrender to God's love for us no matter how difficult it seems."

I can only speak from my own experiences - well, it concerns my own faith so why not? - but let me tell you this: I came back to the church (that I had left in my late teens) through reasoning. I'm wired that way. I must believe through understanding. If I didn't understood - not felt, but understood - that God exists and that He died for me and that He loves me - then I would still be agnostic. I don't understand why I should take up a cross that I don't see. Until it makes sense, I can't take up that cross. I will suffer for a good cause, but not for something that seems silly to me.

Also, the church has changed its views in the past. People have been burned for things that are no longer herecies: the earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun. Were the people who had "heretical" ideas that are OK now, sinning because they followed their conscience but erred? Did they err, or did the church err?

I am not ready to accept a certain teaching, I'm just not. Perhaps I'm a bad catholic for that. I think a lot of people are imperfect in their faith and I am certainly not perfect in mine. But I am catholic. As I already said, there is no alternative for me. Theologically, morally, dogmatically I have the most in common with the catholic church. I seek perfection there, not outside the church. Jesus didn't hang out with perfect people, and I hope that He would have hung out with me.

My struggle in that one, non-dogmatic, IMO non-infallible teaching has EVERYTHING to do with abuse in my childhood. I am deeply traumatized. I am so broken, you can't imagine. I don't think that the church takes personal circumstances into account with this teaching, that's all. I can't imagine that God wants to see me deeply unhappy - call me weak, I am weak, I don't care. I am more capable to take my own personal circumstances into account than the catechism, which was written by people who don't know me. Bad things would come from it if I did what the church asked from me here - at least at this point, as long as I am not healed in this department. Frankly, I don't know if I can ever be healed. Believe me, I pray for understanding of the doctrine every day, I pray that I may accept it every day. It has given me a lot of grief because I want to obey the church that I love. But so far I do not understand at all. I don't know that the church is wrong on this - I only know that I don't understand it. If God told me directly what to do, that would help.