seeking understanding

[QuantaCura]

(this is for those Catholic who claim communion with the Bishop of Rome, not Old Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians, etc.)

I hope I don't offend, but I am hoping to understand your position.

I am having difficulty with understanding why one remains Catholic when he disagrees with certain things and there are other religions that he would agree with or which affirm a great diversity of beliefs (and I don't mean actively struggling to understand, but rather just deciding to disagree). Wouldn't honesty and integrity demand that one not be a member of a religion one does not actually believe in? If you don't believe certain decrees from the Vicar of Christ bind under pain of sin or if you can't hold positions that must be held, what is the point? Why not be an Orthodox or an Anglican or an Old Catholic or a Liberal Catholic International or something like that? I want everyone to be Catholic, but if I rejected those Catholic doctrines, I wouldn't want to be Catholic--that would make no sense--I would feel like I was living a lie.

I could never become a member of a religion I could not affirm in all the points that required affirmation. Even if I believed all religions were flawed in some way or were completely man-made, there's still the matter of respecting the rules of a community. I coudn't join any organization unless I could honestly affirm what was required. I'm sorry, it just seems dishonest--help me to understand how it's not something sinful.

I am having even more difficulty with those who activiely want to change the Church, her doctrines, and her structure. There are those of us who believe these things are given from God. We cherish these things as treasures from our Father--they are our patrimony--they are everyone's patrimony in the whole world. Even if you don't believe that why would you want to take it away from us or prevent others from ever having access to it? If you don't want it, so be it, you don't have to partake of it--but why try and ruin it for those of us who do value it as the pearl of great price? No one is forcing anyone to accept it. If you believe it to be evil, then again, the question becomes why be a member of religion you find to be evil? In that case it would make more sense to be a member of a religion you believed and then try and evangelize us to that religion. I admit, it makes me angry sometimes and I react the wrong way. But I really don't want anyone to leave it--it's heartbreaking to see. And even moreso, I don't want anyone to take it away from those who cherish it. How is that a good thing, especially for those who seem to have a "live and let live" attittude?

Please help me to understand.

[HyacinthBouquet]

As a former Roman Catholic, I hope you don't mind if I help you to understand. My move out of the Roman Catholic Church to the Anglican Church was extremely difficult and painful. My family were very much against it. My father, in particular, was very upset about it.

There were other, more extreme, sections of my extended family who actually believed that by joining the Anglican Church I was doing something evil. They believed that I was giving up my salvation and the salvation of my children. The people who believed this were my children's godparents.

However, because there were no liberal catholics in my family, just conservatives, I felt that I had no choice. I could either live with their condemnation and persecution or I could leave and find another spiritual family in another spiritual home.

The psychological effect of feeling that you are "living in sin" and that you are seriously bad has a very damaging effect on a person's mind. I found that it was blocking my ability to communicate with God. I found it difficult to pray and I was unable to receive Holy Communion.

Due to health reasons, I had no choice about the "living in sin" bit. After six difficult pregnancies, my body had had enough and my life was endangered during the last pregnancy. I therefore could not risk any further pregnancies. But the conservative catholics in my family were insisting that, in this case, I must give up any future physical relationship with my husband. "It is the only way." they said.

Forgive me, but I could not accept that and neither could my husband. So, after much soul-searching we ventured out of the Catholic Church and started visiting the Anglican Catholic Church. However, it was, and still is, quite alien to us. We often go back to the Catholic Church because it feels like home to us. We can understand how some liberal Catholics would be reluctant to leave.

We still have not formally left the Catholic Church because our family are so much against it. So we have to pretend that we are still Catholic, to them.

[Rebekka]

I appreciate it that you ask this question QuantaCura, because I hope that it will make it more understandable why someone doesn't always leave despite disagreement.

I'll answer for myself only, but I don't really consider myself a liberal catholic - it's some other catholics who call me that (or uncatholic, or cafetaria catholic).

Let me tell you first that I believe all catholic dogmas. I believe and obey all catholic doctrine but one. Only one! So is that one tiny thing (which is not a salvation issue at all, is not found in the gospel, is not found in the other books of the New Testament) enough to throw me out? Am I non-catholic because of that one single thing?

As is stated in the OBOB wiki rules, it is OK to assent even if you can't agree with something. Do you agree with EVERY single thing? I don't know where assent becomes dissent, but in this particular doctrine I cannot obey until I fully agree with the doctrine. It would alter my life too much before I am ready for it. I have good reasons to disobey. I do not promote disobedience, it is a personal issue between me and God. I do not want to change the church from within. I believe that in my personal case, I have good reason to follow my conscience. It is well-informed. The church teaches that one should follow his conscience.

You are wrong to assume that there is an alternative church/denomination for me. You are wrong to assume that if you can't agree with everything, this means that you agree with nothing. You are wrong to assume that "liberal" catholics (again, I don't consider myself one, but because of one single thing I am suddenly "cafetaria"- only because I can't understand and accept one single minor non-theological non-dogmatic thing!) would have more in common with other churches.

Maybe people who have converted from another denomination to catholicism don't understand why people remain catholic even if they have struggles or a disagreement - but for me, leaving is not an option. I am catholic from birth. I believe that I will always be catholic. I love the church. I am not trying to change her. I believe that leaving the church is a bigger sin than disobedience in one single doctrine. I believe that telling others that they should leave their church, that they love, is a bigger sin than what I'm doing. If there is no salvation outside the church, then what are you doing when you're throwing people out who are struggling with something that in their views doesn't even make sense? I am not saying that I know better than the church - and leaving would certainly mean that (to me, at least). I appreciate the church 100% and accept her authority, even if I can't obey in that one thing.

I sometimes compare my relationship with the church to a marriage, or a parent-child relationship. As a child, I accepted my parents' authority, and I obeyed them in general. However, I didn't always agree with them, and there will have been moments that I didn't obey them because I thought they were wrong. I followed my conscience. Did my disobedience in one thing all of a sudden mean that my parents no longer were my parents? That I should leave their house? If I can't accept one thing, does that mean that I accept nothing? No, that doesn't make sense! I wasn't even a bad disobedient child - I obeyed in general. My parents never told me to leave.

Or let's look at a marriage. Husband and wife are one flesh. My husband and I are extremely close and we agree on almost everything. However, there are minor things that we disagree in. Does this disband our marriage bond? Can we only be married if we agree 100%? Or are we still married despite our little disagreement? I believe in marriage until death, I can't leave my husband even if I would want to (I don't! I love him with all my heart!).

I am as married to the church as I am to my husband. I can't believe that the church, who doesn't believe in divorce and who has always regretted all schisms, would rather have her sheep leave than have them stay, despite their differences of opinion. There are some catholics - far more liberal than me - who want to change the church, and who have less in common (theologically, doctrinally, dogmatically) with the church than I. I can't speak for them. They may want to leave or they may want to stay. If they stay, I think it's best to assume that they find that they have more in common with the catholic church, still, than with other churches. I personally don't want to change the church, I accept her authority, I just disagree in that one minor thing. That doesn't mean that all other things are suddenly worthless. I just think that one single doctrine is too broad, an overgeneralization, and that personal circumstances should be taken into account here. But overall, I agree with the church. And my agreement is VERY close to 100%.

When looking at other denominations, for me personally there is not a single one that would be a better alternative for the catholic church. Not one. I fully believe in catholic theology, in catholic dogma. Surely you're not saying that it is better to become protestant if you don't believe in predestination, if you do believe in purgatory, if you do believe in having saints and Mary pray for us, if you value all 7 sacraments, if you believe faith AND works are important, if you believe in the immaculate conception of Mary, if you believe in one holy catholic church???

Honesty and integrity demand that I remain catholic. I would be a fake and a liar if I became something else than catholic, because I have much less in common with other churches. I am not living a lie now, I would live a lie then. Also, I don't quite understand the difference between actively struggling and disagreeing. I am not saying that I will never accept the church's teaching in that one single thing that I actively disagree with - maybe I will accept it one day. Do you want to throw someone out who would have accepted it sooner or later?

I don't understand the war between "good catholics" and "bad catholics". We're all sinners.

[JasonV]

RebekkaH,

That was an incredibly profound post. Blew me away. I normally would have agreed with the OP about leaving if you don't agree 100%, but this has made me re-think that viewpoint on many levels.

I hope our friends in OBOB have a chance to read and study this.

Maybe we should sticky your post?

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

Yes, while I consider myself orthodox, it is the view that makes more sense to me too.

[Pogue]

Maybe we should sticky your post?


I second that. It was a great post, which summed up so much which needed to be said.

[Rebekka]

I hope our friends in OBOB have a chance to read and study this.

Maybe we should sticky your post?
:blush: well if you wish.

[UberLutheran]

The Lutheran Church (ELCA) for me is the best "fit" of any church I've found, either as a child or an adult. In order to feel like I've truly "worshiped", I need a liturgy: in the ELCA, I get a liturgy. (For those of you who have not attended an ELCA church, the liturgy is very much like that of the Catholic church.) I want good music in the service: we've got Luther (also a very fine composer), Samuel Scheidt, Johann Krüger, Johann Sebastian Bach, Georg Phillipp Telemann, Georg Friedrich Händel, Dietrich Buxtehude, Felix Mendelssohn, Johannes Brahms (when he was younger), Healey Willan, Hugo Distler, Paul Manz -- and me. (:P) (If I may be so modest...) I wanted a denomination which wouldn't hand me all the answers on a plate, but make me do some research on my own and think some things out for myself. Voilà: Lutheranism (although there is much of that in the Presbyterian Church-USA, the Episcopal Church, and the Catholic Church).

I have the most profound respect for Martin Luther and what he was trying to accomplish in the 15th century. That Luther was able to accomplish what he was trying to do at all is nothing short of amazing.

At the same time, I think Luther was completely wrong about the Pope being the Antichrist and that there is no salvation to be found in the Catholic Church (I think that belief is rubbish: Catholics are Christians and while I don't believe the Pope is the ruler of the Church on earth, he IS the Bishop of Rome and deserves respect. I think Luther completely missed the boat with regard to his beliefs about women (they're either good as wives or prostitutes) and Jews (children of the Devil).

So, with these four areas of major disagreement, should I completely repudiate Luther and the Lutheran church? No. There ARE fundamentalist Lutherans who hold to Luther's views in these four areas; but it is certainly not beholden for me to do so. Does it bother my conscience that I don't hold to Luther's beliefs in these four areas when I participate in Lutheran worship or during the Eucharist. Not in the least: Luther was brilliant, but he was not a "modern" man and very much a product of his time. (For that matter, so were Meister Eckhart, Julian of Norwich, Hildegard of Bingen, and other luminaries of the faith.) Do I believe I'm a Lutheran in good standing? Absolutely.

I went through Catholic confirmation, not with the intent of becoming Catholic (and I was clear on that) but to try to understand where my partner and other Catholics who are very close to me are coming from. One of the things I learned is that when one has a serious disagreement with Church dogma, and after one has examined their conscience and done the hard work of studying the different sides of the dogma and the disagreement -- if one still has that disagreement, one must follow the dictates of the conscience. (The Church does give guidance in how to do this.) Even though I'm Lutheran, it was a very valuable concept I got from the confirmation process and I have used it when I have disagreements with some aspect of Lutheran doctrine (for instance, original sin). One can have disagreements with the Church and still remain a member in good conscience and good standing.

[JasonV]

Valuable contribution UberLutheran. I've been meaning to attend an ELCA parish for sometime now. Will I notice any major difference between a Missouri Synod parish and an ELCA?

[UberLutheran]

Valuable contribution UberLutheran. I've been meaning to attend an ELCA parish for sometime now. Will I notice any major difference between a Missouri Synod parish and an ELCA?

You will not be allowed to participate in Communion in a Missouri Synod church unless you are a member of that Missouri Synod church (they practice closed Communion), but any baptized Christian may participate in Communion in an ELCA church.

Missouri Synod has male pastors only; ELCA has male and female pastors. The Missouri Synod does not recognize members of the ELCA (or the ELCA itself) as being properly "Lutheran".

Missouri Synod is fundamentalist; ELCA tends toward the historical-critical viewpoint of Scripture. Missouri Synod accepts all the pronouncements by Martin Luther; ELCA accepts Luther's views about the Reformation but repudiates Luther's comments about women, Catholics and Jews.

If you are gay, best be quiet about it in the Missouri Synod -- they can and will excommunicate. ELCA tends to be much more relaxed about gays and lesbians in ELCA churches.

Lake Wobegon Lutheran Church (of Garrison Keillor fame) is an ELCA church, shepherded by Pastor Inqvist.

[Protinus]

I coudn't join any organization unless I could honestly affirm what was required. I'm sorry, it just seems dishonest--help me to understand how it's not something sinful.

You are essentially asking why I haven't left the Church?

One thing that I want to make clear is that I do not withhold assent from any Church teaching that is sole described and solemnly proclaimed through the Extraordinary Magesterium. It is very confusing that many Catholics describing themselves as "defenders of the faith", orthodox, conservative, etc., accept as infallible some teachings declared as infallible through the Ordinary Magisterium. One example is the teaching through the ordinary Magesterium that women can not be ordained to the diaconate or priesthood. It is not true that I reject all teachings but this is enough for others to call me a "Catholic in name only" or a "parasite". I like to weigh arguments and ask questions openly about my faith and our Church.

I believe in our lady as the cooperator of redemption but this is not defined in the Extraordinary Magesterium nor is abortion, which I do not agree with. I accept these principles because it makes sense in the Bible. it is more than compelling and there are historical arguments for the Church's teaching here. And, I also accept the fact that there are those that will invariably disagree with me on anything defined in the ordinary Magesterium and has a right to their opinion. It is not right fro me to call them a heretic or that I be called a heretic because of these disagreements.

I believe that itis God's act that all people are being saved if they are cooperating with His Grace. We separate ourselves from His grace by rejecting it and sinning. Catholics display outwrad signs of grace by participation in the sacramental life, growth in faith, love and hope. Yet these things do not make us Catholic- God alone makes us Catholic- even if we suffer from doubts, intellectual confusion and error.

I also believe that you are doing a service to the Church by disagreeing with Her...even publicly as I have and sustaining much pain as a result. If I am wrong, I force apologists to think my position through and convince me of error- I will have grown and the apologists will have helped me. If I am right, I am acting with the Holy Spirit as my guide to help the Church develop doctrine and continual renewal.

One man can not wreck the Church or OBOB just as he can not overthrow the United States. We can only agree that the Holy Spirit will not help him and therefore lead the Church or OBOB astray...and his ideas will only be accepted in so far that he speaks through the Holy Spirit and projects what the Holy Spirit is saying in our current time.

These are a few reasons why I remain Catholic.

[Loki]

WTB punctuation.

I believe in the Catholic Church because I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church, and I believe that Jesus said "upon this rock I build my church."

I believe that the Church is comprised of those who come together to worship together, and is not a timeless entity; it is firmly rooted in the temporal sphere, and that through it a hint of the beginnings of God's reign may be found. I believe that it may make missteps, but that its intention is good and true, and if it has been able to reneg on past issues, it may well do so in the future.

[QuantaCura]

(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. :(

[Cosmic Charlie]

It's really simple:

I am a Catholic because I am one.

Try to make not one.

[QuantaCura]

It's really simple:

I am a Catholic because I am one.

It's the indelible mark :)

[Cosmic Charlie]

It's the indelible mark :)
So why the question than ?

That's a serious as a heart attack question.

[JasonV]

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. :(

I wonder if perhaps you are looking at this situation as a black/white scenario, whereas others see various shades in between?

We all know that Catholics of every age have fought for what they thought was right, to be eventually trumped by someone in political authority deciding what was "true". (Think 1st Nicea.) I suggest that our Catholic friends here who have no intention of defecting, believe that theirs is the Catholic position, and that someone is teaching a non-Catholic position.

Possible? It was until 1870.

[QuantaCura]

So why the question than ?

That's a serious as a heart attack question.

The indelible mark is given at our Baptism and Confirmation, it imprints on us the Catholic character--being Catholic is not just a title it is a truly a state of being. When one accepts the mark, one truly assents to being a Catholic, with everything that goes along with it.

Here's how Vatican II put it:

"Incorporated in the Church through baptism, the faithful are destined by the baptismal character for the worship of the Christian religion; reborn as sons of God they must confess before men the faith which they have received from God through the Church (4*). They are more perfectly bound to the Church by the sacrament of Confirmation, and the Holy Spirit endows them with special strength so that they are more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith, both by word and by deed, as true witnesses of Christ. "


My question is why it is an acceptable position to accept the mark, while intending to undermine rather than defend certain aspects of that faith that have been received or to refuse to confess them before men? That is the fundamental question.

[QuantaCura]

I wonder if perhaps you are looking at this situation as a black/white scenario, whereas others see various shades in between?

We all know that Catholics of every age have fought for what they thought was right, to be eventually trumped by someone in political authority deciding what was "true". (Think 1st Nicea.) I suggest that our Catholic friends here who have no intention of defecting, believe that theirs is the Catholic position, and that someone is teaching a non-Catholic position.

Possible? It was until 1870.

But that's the whole point--that person would still be rejecting the very position they at least implicitly pledge to accept. If you think the Church abandoned its Catholicity at the First Vatican Council, then the only logical position, to me, is that of the Old Catholics or the Orthodox--not the Roman Catholic one. The same can be said for the non-Chalcedonians and the SSPX. In conscience, they could no longer stay someplace they no longer believed to be Catholic. And then, if they believed their position to be best, they shared it with others and invited them to join their group.

Again, I reiterate, I think all of those situations are incredibly sad--but I can at least understand why they did what they did--it makes sense. I cannot understand why someone who no longer believes the Church to teach Catholicism can remain in her and call themselves a Catholic.

I know that probably comes across as really harsh, but it's the best way I can explain my thought process (the last thing I want is anyone to leave the Church)--if I am getting out of line for the forum, let me know.

[Maynard Keenan]

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?

[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 :sigh:

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 :sorry: --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 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html) and Lumen Gentium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html).

[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. :sorry:

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. :holy:

[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 :sigh: : 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. :holy:

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 ;)

[_Shannon_]

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:scratch:

[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:scratch:

I know that. I've been round and round in circles with Orthodox people on that too in my investigation of their claims :sorry: . 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....:sorry:

[_Shannon_]

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 :hug: (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.

[kimber1]

(this is for those Catholic who claim communion with the Bishop of Rome, not Old Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians, etc.)

I hope I don't offend, but I am hoping to understand your position.

I am having difficulty with understanding why one remains Catholic when he disagrees with certain things and there are other religions that he would agree with or which affirm a great diversity of beliefs (and I don't mean actively struggling to understand, but rather just deciding to disagree). Wouldn't honesty and integrity demand that one not be a member of a religion one does not actually believe in? If you don't believe certain decrees from the Vicar of Christ bind under pain of sin or if you can't hold positions that must be held, what is the point? Why not be an Orthodox or an Anglican or an Old Catholic or a Liberal Catholic International or something like that? I want everyone to be Catholic, but if I rejected those Catholic doctrines, I wouldn't want to be Catholic--that would make no sense--I would feel like I was living a lie.

I could never become a member of a religion I could not affirm in all the points that required affirmation. Even if I believed all religions were flawed in some way or were completely man-made, there's still the matter of respecting the rules of a community. I coudn't join any organization unless I could honestly affirm what was required. I'm sorry, it just seems dishonest--help me to understand how it's not something sinful.

I am having even more difficulty with those who activiely want to change the Church, her doctrines, and her structure. There are those of us who believe these things are given from God. We cherish these things as treasures from our Father--they are our patrimony--they are everyone's patrimony in the whole world. Even if you don't believe that why would you want to take it away from us or prevent others from ever having access to it? If you don't want it, so be it, you don't have to partake of it--but why try and ruin it for those of us who do value it as the pearl of great price? No one is forcing anyone to accept it. If you believe it to be evil, then again, the question becomes why be a member of religion you find to be evil? In that case it would make more sense to be a member of a religion you believed and then try and evangelize us to that religion. I admit, it makes me angry sometimes and I react the wrong way. But I really don't want anyone to leave it--it's heartbreaking to see. And even moreso, I don't want anyone to take it away from those who cherish it. How is that a good thing, especially for those who seem to have a "live and let live" attittude?

Please help me to understand.haven't read everyone else's post so mine may be a repeat but here goes...

you don't offend me. it's a pretty legit question i suppose.

my personal reasons---- i had at one time thought, you know maybe you'd be better off going to the Episcopalian church down the road. but with absolutely NO offense to my Anglican brothers and sisters, i spent waaaaaaaaaaaaayy too much time invested in converting to Catholic. it was one hell of a hard road with many huge obstacles. i absolutely believe that the Pope is where he's supposed to be and that no other than him is "in charge" down here so that kind of fixes that for me there.

i can absolutely not even consider any other 'faith' other than Catholic. i just can't. i may not agree with everything but i just in my heart know this is where i'm to be. maybe the other things i'll finally "get" in time. i don't know. i hope i do. i cna only keep trying but i just can't go anywhere else. it'd be turning my back on everything i believe.

[Protinus]

haven't read everyone else's post so mine may be a repeat but here goes...

you don't offend me. it's a pretty legit question i suppose.

my personal reasons---- i had at one time thought, you know maybe you'd be better off going to the Episcopalian church down the road. but with absolutely NO offense to my Anglican brothers and sisters, i spent waaaaaaaaaaaaayy too much time invested in converting to Catholic. it was one hell of a hard road with many huge obstacles. i absolutely believe that the Pope is where he's supposed to be and that no other than him is "in charge" down here so that kind of fixes that for me there.

i can absolutely not even consider any other 'faith' other than Catholic. i just can't. i may not agree with everything but i just in my heart know this is where i'm to be. maybe the other things i'll finally "get" in time. i don't know. i hope i do. i cna only keep trying but i just can't go anywhere else. it'd be turning my back on everything i believe.

gosh I love you!!

[kimber1]

gosh I love you!!
:kiss:

question for quantacura:

are you a Catholic from birth? i ask bc i know some of us who struggle with some aspects of teh Church are converts and i wonder if part of the problem in why you can't understand why we don't just leave is bc you don't understand how very hard it has been for us to shed our previous denominations.

[Fantine]

For many people, the religion of their birth is strongly connected to their heritage, their culture, and their ethnicity. To be Catholic is more than attending a church--it's being from a certain family, with a certain ethnic background, living in a certain neighborhood, sharing a certain heritage.

And so, being born Catholic doesn't mean that you have thoroughly studied each and every page in the Catechism and agree with every last semicolon--not at infant baptism and not, usually, at Confirmation (I was confirmed at 11...) But Catholicism is part of my identity.

And part of being a "liberal" Christian of any denomination means looking at religion more as mentoring than as indoctrination. I don't know if any of us would ever find a perfect match in religion--because there are 6.1 billion of us, all different, and only 100 or so religions, probably less.

[Protinus]

And part of being a "liberal" Christian of any denomination means looking at religion more as mentoring than as indoctrination. I don't know if any of us would ever find a perfect match in religion--because there are 6.1 billion of us, all different, and only 100 or so religions, probably less.


I am so glad you are here!!:bow:

[Rebekka]

:kiss:

question for quantacura:

are you a Catholic from birth? i ask bc i know some of us who struggle with some aspects of teh Church are converts and i wonder if part of the problem in why you can't understand why we don't just leave is bc you don't understand how very hard it has been for us to shed our previous denominations.
:D We're all different and have different perspectives - my thoughts were the exact opposite. As a cradle catholic I can't understand why I would leave the church because I disagree with only one doctrine - the church is much bigger than that one thing, and dogmas are more important than doctrines anyway. So to me the suggestion of leaving doesn't make sense - I assumed that it would be something that converts would understand more easily, as they have left their old denomination already.

Guess I was wrong - thanks to your post I see that now. :hug:


I agree Fantine, "I don't know if any of us would ever find a perfect match in religion--because there are 6.1 billion of us, all different, and only 100 or so religions, probably less." :thumbsup: We have free will. We should use it. I think that most people disagree with one or more things in their denomination. The catholic church stresses freedom and promotes freedom. I think there is room for following your own conscience in the catholic church.

[kimber1]

:D We're all different and have different perspectives - my thoughts were the exact opposite. As a cradle catholic I can't understand why I would leave the church because I disagree with only one doctrine - the church is much bigger than that one thing, and dogmas are more important than doctrines anyway. So to me the suggestion of leaving doesn't make sense - I assumed that it would be something that converts would understand more easily, as they have left their old denomination already.

Guess I was wrong - thanks to your post I see that now. :hug:


I agree Fantine, "I don't know if any of us would ever find a perfect match in religion--because there are 6.1 billion of us, all different, and only 100 or so religions, probably less." :thumbsup: We have free will. We should use it. I think that most people disagree with one or more things in their denomination. The catholic church stresses freedom and promotes freedom. I think there is room for following your own conscience in the catholic church.well see for me, i used to be Baptist. so it's been really hard fro me to shed some of that thinking that i've had ingrained in me all my life.

i went thru so much to convert, been shunned by my former church going family (meaning those i went to church with, not my actual family) and i felt that the Catholic Church embraced me warts and all.

but at the same time, now that the 'newness' i guess has worn off and how caught up in the whole thing i was, and i've begun to search and study more, i'm left with all these why questions that i can't get answered. and merely questioning is seen by some as dissent which personally i think is a load of whooie and i can't stomach that.

i think back to what i was taught as a Baptist and i'm like, see that made so much sense. why is it so hard now? and i wonder if i'm still holding onto alot of my Baptist roots for whatever reason i can't figure out. :(

[Rebekka]

well see for me, i used to be Baptist. so it's been really hard fro me to shed some of that thinking that i've had ingrained in me all my life.

i went thru so much to convert, been shunned by my former church going family (meaning those i went to church with, not my actual family) and i felt that the Catholic Church embraced me warts and all.

but at the same time, now that the 'newness' i guess has worn off and how caught up in the whole thing i was, and i've begun to search and study more, i'm left with all these why questions that i can't get answered. and merely questioning is seen by some as dissent which personally i think is a load of whooie and i can't stomach that.

i think back to what i was taught as a Baptist and i'm like, see that made so much sense. why is it so hard now? and i wonder if i'm still holding onto alot of my Baptist roots for whatever reason i can't figure out. :(
:hug: :hug: :hug:

Questioning =/= dissent.