Is Everything In The Catechism Dogma?

[Ziggamafu]

ok...it took six months of prayer and study and I finally got to the point (two weeks ago) where i realized i am capable, ready, and willing to be confirmed Catholic. there were a few very small details that i wanted to work out before hand and i did...so the next step was seeing a priest, right?

so i saw the local one today.

he made it sound like the Catholic Church breeds as much confusion as Sola Scriptora...only We maintain a unity of sorts by acknowledging the same successor of Peter...lay people, brothers and sisters, deacons, priests, bishops - everyone - has different interpretations of the Code of Canon Law, the CCC, the GIRM, the Church Fathers and Doctors, etc. they quibble among themselves and everyone ends up with his or her opinion and nothing more...he said for instance that in all his years as a priest, he's had maybe 12 people confess to using contraception when he knows that 90+% use them. and you can't really go to a priest or bishop for a definitive answer since they will each carry their own bias and interpretation.

basically, i came away with the impression from him that Catholicism holds more grey areas than Protestantism and is far more complicated in faith-llife. he told me to spend the next few months holding Catholic disciplines to see if i can (or want) to do it for the rest of my life...

[b]so i'm left wondering: what [i]is[/i] black and white in the Catholic Church?[/b] i mean...man...it feels like he was encouraging me to stay non-Denominational or something. it's really quite frustrating. is anything spelled out clearly? Is there anything universal in the Church besides the same creed and rituals at Mass? a little help?

...sigh...

[dUSt]

Moving to Debate Table.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Jul 3 2004, 02:34 AM']ok...it took six months of prayer and study and I finally got to the point (two weeks ago) where i realized i am capable, ready, and willing to be confirmed Catholic. there were a few very small details that i wanted to work out before hand and i did...so the next step was seeing a priest, right?

so i saw the local one today.

he made it sound like the Catholic Church breeds as much confusion as Sola Scriptora...only We maintain a unity of sorts by acknowledging the same successor of Peter...lay people, brothers and sisters, deacons, priests, bishops - everyone - has different interpretations of the Code of Canon Law, the CCC, the GIRM, the Church Fathers and Doctors, etc. they quibble among themselves and everyone ends up with his or her opinion and nothing more...he said for instance that in all his years as a priest, he's had maybe 12 people confess to using contraception when he knows that 90+% use them. and you can't really go to a priest or bishop for a definitive answer since they will each carry their own bias and interpretation.

basically, i came away with the impression from him that Catholicism holds more grey areas than Protestantism and is far more complicated in faith-llife. he told me to spend the next few months holding Catholic disciplines to see if i can (or want) to do it for the rest of my life...

[b]so i'm left wondering: what [i]is[/i] black and white in the Catholic Church?[/b] i mean...man...it feels like he was encouraging me to stay non-Denominational or something. it's really quite frustrating. is anything spelled out clearly? Is there anything universal in the Church besides the same creed and rituals at Mass? a little help?

...sigh...[/quote]
Clearly, you came away with the wrong impression. As it concerns the relationship between Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council taught that:

[quote name='Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum' date=' no. 10']Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.

[i]But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ[/i]. This Magisterium is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

[i]It is clear, therefore, that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls[/i].[/quote]

Catholics are required to assent to the teachings of the Magisterium, whether those teachings are proclaimed by the Extraordinary, the Ordinary, or merely the Authentic Magisterium. The opinions of theologians, priests, laymen, et al., if they do not conform to the teaching of the Magisterium, are not authoritative, and no one is required to hold to such opinions, and in fact, if the opinions in question contradict the teaching of the Church, then it follows that they must be absolutely rejected.

As far as the Catechism is concerned, the Holy Father wrote the following: "The [u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u], [i]which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith[/i]. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom!" [Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution [u]Fidei Depositum[/u], no. 4]

Edited July 8, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Quietfire]

Ziggamafu,

As another person preparing entrance into the Church, may I offer some advice.

If for some reason there are any doubts about that particular priest, please see another. But do not mention the conversation with the first priest to the second priest.

Do not judge Christ by a christian (even if he is a priest) We are fallable and therefore are not perfect, so as you would not want me to judge the Church by your particular actions, then it may be wise for you to do the same. (best advice)

Often people faith-jump. A priest must do what is necessary to protect the Church, even if it seems to you that he is making the Church seem imperfect.
In my own personal opinion, being a Catholic is not the same as Protestantism.
You must be stronger, show that you are serious and pious. Let no man dissuade you from Christ. God tests all of us, but He never gives us more than we can handle. This priest is testing you, I can feel it. Not to dissuade you, but simply to see if you are serious, for this is serious. Catholicism is a life long commitment, no second chances.

[quote]capable, ready, and willing to be confirmed Catholic.[/quote]
Pray some more. Although I am sure this isnt what you told your priest, being willing isnt enough. This should be your hearts desire, only desire. To receive the eucharist means being a cell in the body of Christ, and that ultimate union should be the one thing you want and need more than anything else. Life with Christ without this superb union is not life.

Many will distract, your eyes should be firmly set on Our Lord.

Peace :peace:

[Ziggamafu]

see, that is the biggest thing: I BELIEVE. And so I want the Sacraments, desperately! When I go to Mass now, I perceive the Real Presence and want more than anything to share in it...this is what is so frustrating...

[cmotherofpirl]

Have you done RCIA? Seen this priest on a regular basis? Does he see you at Mass every Sunday?

[Mickey's_Girl]

I've been reading "The Courage to Be Catholic" by George Weigel. It's a discussion of crises in the priesthood, and does a good job explaining *why* there are so many Catholics (priests included) that don't think they have to adhere to the Magisterium.

Not saying your priest is like this. Just explaining. It might be helpful.

MG

[Ellenita]

[quote]has different interpretations of the Code of Canon Law, the CCC, the GIRM, the Church Fathers and Doctors, etc. they quibble among themselves and everyone ends up with his or her opinion and nothing more... [/quote]

Actually I think the church teaching on faith and morals is really clear. Where the 'water gets muddied' is when we prefer to personally interpret the teaching - usually so that we can continue to do something which we know in our hearts is a sin!

[quote]he said for instance that in all his years as a priest, he's had maybe 12 people confess to using contraception when he knows that 90+% use them.[/quote]

The issue here is not whether church teaching is 'correct' or not about contraception, but whether people are prepared to confess their individual sin. Although a priest might know that a person is sinning, ultimately it's the person's responsibility to make confession themselves, he can't force them to do it. We have free will...the church teaches the best way for us but whether we follow it is down to us.

[quote]basically, i came away with the impression from him that Catholicism holds more grey areas than Protestantism and is far more complicated in faith-llife....[/quote]

I don't think it holds more grey areas. The teaching is clear but that doesn't mean that it's easier to live - in fact in many ways it requires more 'faith life' since the teaching is often at odds with secular views and can at times appear to be illogical as a result. (I'm not suggesting that it is illogical, just that it can appear to be against secular teaching).
With protestant teaching, if you're not happy with an aspect of the teaching you can move onto another denomination until you find one that fits your mind set.

[quote]he told me to spend the next few months holding Catholic disciplines to see if i can (or want) to do it for the rest of my life...[/quote]

He is a wise priest! It's a life changing and life time decision. At confirmation you will publicly say that you hold to the teaching of the Catholic church, so it's important to be sure. You want to be able to do this with an honest heart don't you?

[Ziggamafu]

thank you for all of your thoughtful replies. they make me appreciate what the guy was saying much more. i do know that i'm used to very conservative words and theology, so he kind of came off too far to the left, initially. but i see what you all are saying. i guess i just really, REALLY want to have Confession and Eucharist, and it's annoying that i can't right now, even though i believe...

[Mickey's_Girl]

[quote]. i guess i just really, REALLY want to have Confession and Eucharist, and it's annoying that i can't right now, even though i believe... [/quote]

Zigg, I totally feel you on this! I have an appt. next week to talk to my priest about being received into the church, and as a baptized Christian, theoretically I am not supposed to go through all of RCIA, but I may end up getting put there nonetheless, which would mean another nine+ months, ARGH!!!

It's hard to be patient! But hang in there. This faith is worth it. I'm praying for you.

MG

[PedroX]

Mickey's Girl,

I believe that you are slightly mistaken. As a baptized Christian, you should (preferrably) be recieved into the Church at a time other than the Easter Vigil. However, there is no proscription against RCIA, and given the schedule of priests these days, it is simply more expiedent to teach a class rather than individual sessions. RCIA or other waiting time is good for those joining the church. If I were a priest I would certainly require a period of at least several months before admitting one to the Sacrements. The process in the ancient church took well over a year.

peace...

[Mickey's_Girl]

[quote name='PedroX' date='Jul 9 2004, 11:24 AM'] Mickey's Girl,

I believe that you are slightly mistaken. As a baptized Christian, you should (preferrably) be recieved into the Church at a time other than the Easter Vigil. However, there is no proscription against RCIA, and given the schedule of priests these days, it is simply more expiedent to teach a class rather than individual sessions. RCIA or other waiting time is good for those joining the church. If I were a priest I would certainly require a period of at least several months before admitting one to the Sacrements. The process in the ancient church took well over a year.

peace... [/quote]
Ah, I see that I didn't phrase myself the way I meant it. When I said "all of RCIA", I meant that, indeed, I should be received at a time other than Easter Vigil, not that I wouldn't spend any time in RCIA.

So, if I got received before Easter, and RCIA runs Sept. to May (in our parish), then I wouldn't be going through "all" of it...

Or perhaps people go to RCIA *after* they're confirmed, too? I expect I will find out all about this next week when I talk to Fr. Daryl.

MG

[amarkich]

Mickey's Girl, another thing that apparently is not done in practice at most Novus Ordo churches is called conditional Baptism. This is still allowed in the new Rite and has been done throughout Church history. Conditional Baptisms are peformed in the case that the one who seeks to join the Church does not know whether or not he has actually been baptized. This practice, however, after the Protestant Revolution was also applied to those who were 'baptized' by nonCatholic "ministers" in the event that those Baptisms were invalid. As far as I understand, many of the early Protestants believed in regenerative Baptism, and so there was little fear that these Baptisms were invalid (as long as the correct form: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" was used). The frightening issue comes in concerning Protestants who do not use the correct words (which would automatically invalidate the Baptism, e.g., mormons, and other sects which do not use the correct form). The more frightening issue arrises with those who were 'baptized' by Protestants who do not believe in regenerative Baptism, i.e., fundamentalists and most Protestants in general. From what I have read in catechisms which were published before the new Rite was initiated, conditional Baptism was extended to those who knew that they had been 'baptized' using the correct words but were not baptized in the Church and were not baptized by someone who believed that Baptism is regenerative. Many of the catechisms that I have read stated, in general, that Protestants converts are always baptized conditionally in the event that their first 'Baptism' was not valid. This is certainly something that you should ask your Priest to do for you as it is a longstanding tradition (at least since the Protestants have been around) and is the only sure way to know that one is definitely baptized. There is no reason to take a chance. God bless.

[Sojourner]

According to the National Statutes for the Catechumenate by the U.S. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, as published in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults and quoted on the [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/How_to_Become_a_Catholic.asp"]Catholic Answers[/url] site,

[quote]"Those baptized persons who have lived as Christians and need only instruction in the Catholic tradition and a degree of probation within the Catholic community should not be asked to undergo a full program parallel to the catechumenate" (NSC 31)[/quote]

And
[quote]Rather than being received on Easter Vigil, "[t]he reception of candidates into the communion of the Catholic Church should ordinarily take place at the Sunday Eucharist of the parish community, in such a way that it is understood that they are indeed Christian believers who have already shared in the sacramental life of the Church and are now welcomed into the Catholic Eucharistic community . . ." (NSC 32).[/quote]

And
[quote]"It is preferable that reception into full communion not take place at the Easter Vigil lest there be any confusion of such baptized Christians with the candidates for baptism, possible misunderstanding of or even reflection upon the sacrament of baptism celebrated in another church or ecclesial community . . . " (NSC 33). [/quote]

It appears from these statements that the normative means of reception into the church for a baptized Christian who has been living as a Christian is markedly different from that of a catechumen. In my experience, this was not the case, not by a long shot. Even though I have been active as a Christian for many years, I went through a process nearly identical to that of catechumens and uncatechized Christians.

The wait was in many ways a good thing for me, and I grew during that time. However, a large percentage of the knowledge I gained during that time was self-directed. I can’t recall learning anything in my RCIA classes that I hadn’t already read in several other places months before I began taking classes. And, in some cases, the information I got through my own study was more sound than that which was taught in my RCIA class.

Waiting did move me toward a greater degree of personal discipline, and I learned through submitting my will to that of someone in authority – valuable lessons, to be sure. But I’m all for a more individually directed RCIA experience, one that is more specifically geared toward ensuring an individual has a complete understanding of the Gospel, the Sacraments, and the Church, and that an individual has a real faith.

From what I’ve read about how the early church admitted people to the sacraments, it was a rigorous process, and determinations were made on an individual basis as to whether a person was prepared to enter the Church. This doesn’t happen now, or at least didn’t in my particular experience. From what I could tell, whoever signed up and stuck out the program got in, and it seemed there was little done to make any sort of individual assessment of readiness for reception of the Sacraments.

Time alone does not ensure that a person is ready to be admitted to the sacraments. While I recognize that priests are quite busy, and that individual attention to members of a parish or those who are contemplating joining the Church can be difficult to schedule in, it seems to me that a reverence for the Eucharist would demand a high degree of examination of the faith of candidates and catechumens. Perhaps this is a responsibility which need not fall directly onto a parish priest and could be delegated to a properly trained person ... but (again from my perspective) it seems to me that a priest should be involved in ensuring that catechumens and candidates receive proper catechesis and are truly ready to be received into the Church.

[p0lar_bear]

[quote]Mickey's Girl, another thing that apparently is not done in practice at most Novus Ordo churches is called conditional Baptism. This is still allowed in the new Rite and has been done throughout Church history. Conditional Baptisms are peformed in the case that the one who seeks to join the Church does not know whether or not he has actually been baptized. [/quote]

Actually, conditional baptisms are done, they just aren't always public or identified as conditional. Conditional baptisms are to be done whenever it is unclear whether the person has been validly baptized.