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.

 

[April Angel]

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?

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?