Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[Guest]

Read this whole thread.....Good read.....I'm actually one of the most sinful Catholics out there.....So much so I'll be lucky to make it to purgatory......With that said I agree with every single thing the Church teaches.......Hopefully this combined with Faith,Mass,Confession,Eucharist,and Prayer will get me into purgatory......Though I deserve hell becuase of my actions I don't want to spend eternity there.....

[Perigrina]

Read this whole thread.....Good read.....I'm actually one of the most sinful Catholics out there.....So much so I'll be lucky to make it to purgatory......With that said I agree with every single thing the Church teaches.......Hopefully this combined with Faith,Mass,Confession,Eucharist,and Prayer will get me into purgatory......Though I deserve hell becuase of my actions I don't want to spend eternity there.....

 

This is how I see myself too.

[Fidei Defensor]

"[S]ometimes we Christians turn our calling into something very paltry. We become superficial and waste our time in dissension and jealousy. Or, worse still, some people are artificially scandalized by the way others choose to live certain aspects of the faith. Instead of doing all they can to help others, they set out to destroy and criticise. It is true that sometimes you find serious shortcomings in Christians' lives. But the important thing is not ourselves and our shortcomings. The only thing that matters is Jesus. It is Christ we must talk about. not ourselves."
—St. Josemaria Escriva

[Guest]

This is how I see myself too.

I doubt you are as sinful as me. I'm 99% sure you're not. Actually 99.9999999% sure but at any rate prayers for us both.

[KnightofChrist]

No one here has said they are holier or less sinful than others. Know one here has claimed to know or understand every doctrine of the Catholic faith. No one here has claimed that another Catholic isn't Catholic -even though oddly enough I have been accused of being overly Catholic. Lastly, no one here has claimed to always be right. None of these things have taken place in this thread, so you either provide the proof that they have taken place or you apologize to everyone for the false accusations.

I'll be waiting for your proof.

 

I doubt that will ever happen, if they could offer proof they would have done so before now. The accusations aren't meant to be questioned, instead they are meant to insult, marginalize and dismiss those that defend orthodoxy. It makes it easier to pat a person on the head and dismiss him as a legalistic Pharisee, than it is to practice what one preaches about charity.

[Perigrina]

I believe the Catholic Church is the one true Apostolic Church of Jesus-Christ, and that it has authority to dogmatically define the core tenets of faith. However, in the case of the Assumption, I don't see how it is core to Christian faith, as manifestely most Church Fathers have not believed in that or at least not cared enough to write anything about it; there's no clear reference to it in the Scriptures; and I don't see either that it holds any necessary logical connection to any other core tenet of Christian faith. Therefore, I see the application of the category "dogma" to this idea as an abuse of the Church's authority.

 

Now it's always this slippery slope argument that if you can deny one dogma then you deny the authority by which all others are defined and you end up with your "personal opinion" religion. This is a bit silly. First, no one starts with the Church's authority as the basis of his belief. The basis of Christian belief is the belief is that God exists and that Jesus was raised from the dead. If neither of these is true, then the "authority of the Church" is nothing. As Paul puts it, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Then you have to believe that Jesus has sent Apostles to preach in his name with authority, and that this authority continues to this day through their successors. If and only if all of this is true, then it is true that today there exists a Church that has the authority to teach in matters of faith, in the name of Christ.

So, at a fundamental level, our faith is not assent to Church teaching, it's free, personal discovery of the risen Christ, that's where it all starts. That's where it started for Peter, James, Paul, and every genuine Christian since then. We then build on top of that basic belief that we need to assent to Church teaching for certain reasons, but because we understand why the authority of the Church is necessary, we can also understand its limits. If the Church defined dogmatically that E=mc^3, I think precious few would think that Christ actually wants us to believe that or else.

 

So why is the authority of the Church necessary? Because in the absence of Christ being physically there to explain the supernatural, if no one is invested with divine authority to do that, then no one can claim to know anything about it. And if we can say nothing with certainty about God and Christ and the Resurrection etc., then faith has no content and Jesus might as well not have existed. This means that some people (the Church) have authority to teach about what it means to have faith in Christ, but it also means that this authority doesn't extend to any arbitrary subject like science or engineering. But knowledge is a continuum with no precise boundaries between branches. It's unclear where theology ends and ethics begin. It's therefore equally unclear how far the authority of the Church extends.

 

Hence my position: just as human knowledge cannot be strictly divided into perfectly distinct compartments, so the authority of the Church cannot be a black and white thing where this falls 100% under her jurisdiction and this is 100% out. There are gray areas. Many would say that some moral teachings would fall in somewhat in a gray area, as ethics are part of natural human science and the Church cannot claim exclusive ownership. In the case of the Assumption, I would argue that this belief is quite peripheral to Christian faith, so there's simply no way that assent to that is critical to salvation.

 

The Church recognizes that there are gray areas.  But she defines what they are.  The dogma of the Assumption is not one of them.  Consider how strong the wording is here:

 

 This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful,"(5) affirming that the bodily Assumption of God's Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly.(6) Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth,(7) and therefore absolutely without error, carries out the commission entrusted to it, that of preserving the revealed truths pure and entire throughout every age, in such a way that it presents them undefiled, adding nothing to them and taking nothing away from them. For, as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith."(8) Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts, "all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."(9)

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

 

You are not merely not believing the dogma.  You are responding to the Church saying "this is true and you must believe it" with "no, I will decide for myself what to believe."

[Perigrina]

I doubt you are as sinful as me. I'm 99% sure you're not. Actually 99.9999999% sure but at any rate prayers for us both.

 

Well, since we can't very well have a contest about it, I'll just say "Amen" to the prayers. 

[Perigrina]

As far as I can see the church still see's baptised Catholics as Catholic, even if they are excommunicated or apostate. They are Catholic, they don't become more or less Catholic. Last I checked the church doesn't tend to remove people from any sort of membership book. So it could be argued that the church is the one holding their identity, not the other way around. Which I think is right. Do all Catholics call themselves Catholic? Do all Catholics who attend a Catholic church mass call themselves Catholic? I know many who don't. I don't police their beliefs but it seems to me they take their beliefs and observances seriously. I see many of them at daily mass etc. Labels only go so far.
 

 

This is what the Church teaches:

 

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

 

23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. It is owing to the Savior's infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet.[20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

 

To be a member of the Body of Christ requires both baptism and true faith.  It is possible for baptized people to cut themselves off from the Body of Christ by schism, heresy, or apostacy. It is possible for the Church to cut people off by excommunication.

 

The way that I use the word "Catholic" it is synonymous with "member of the Church" as described in the above passage from Mystici Corporis.  Perhaps some people are using "Catholic" in some sort of cultural or anthropological sense, in which case there would be different criteria for determining who is a Catholic. But if we are speaking in the theological sense, baptism alone is not enough to make a person a Catholic.

 

We can talk about this in a general way, but we cannot identify any given individual as no longer Catholic.  To do so would require knowledge of culpablilty that we cannot know.

[maximillion]

Human beings are non-congruent in all sorts of areas of their lives. Belief is no different. There are probably plenty of people I see at Mass who, if close questioned, you would find disagreed with Church teaching on a wide range of subjects. Are these people Catholics? 

I am not the one to say, being unable to see into their hearts.

 

They define themselves as such, otherwise they would not be at Mass.

Does that make them heretics?

 

We (people ) are not, in my experience, 100% in anything much.

Some people hold on to the cultural identity of their religion, for whatever reason. Even those who never go to Mass will often say they are Catholic.

Why would they do that?

You'll have to ask them.

LOTS of people live quite unthinking, unanalysed lives.

[Perigrina]

It isn't offensive to take a Catholic stand, but it is hypocritical and fake righteousness to sit in an armchair and start judging people and labeling them as if they really know a person, and do so by quoting anything and everything under the sun, that is just here with the enlightened ones judging other Catholics, but for some reason I just don't see them running to the streets to let all the other religions know of their vast quoting abilities and slapping labels on them on why they are really wrong for being in the religion they are in.

 

Superblue, since I am a person with vast quoting abilities, I would like to respond to this.

 

God loves you.  You are infinitely precious to Him.  The only label you have, as far as I am concerned, is "beloved child of God".

 

I do not think that my quoting abilities make me holy or righteous.  I think the knowledge that I have of Church teaching means that God holds me to a higher standard.  I am in much greater danger of going to hell than you are.  Please pray for me.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Perigrina

[Benedictus]

This is what the Church teaches:

 

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

 

23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. It is owing to the Savior's infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet.[20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

 

To be a member of the Body of Christ requires both baptism and true faith.  It is possible for baptized people to cut themselves off from the Body of Christ by schism, heresy, or apostacy. It is possible for the Church to cut people off by excommunication.

 

The way that I use the word "Catholic" it is synonymous with "member of the Church" as described in the above passage from Mystici Corporis.  Perhaps some people are using "Catholic" in some sort of cultural or anthropological sense, in which case there would be different criteria for determining who is a Catholic. But if we are speaking in the theological sense, baptism alone is not enough to make a person a Catholic.

 

We can talk about this in a general way, but we cannot identify any given individual as no longer Catholic.  To do so would require knowledge of culpablilty that we cannot know.

 

Yes, but it doesn't say they stop being a Catholic even if they are excommunicated or such like. Of course the church has different levels of dealing with realities. In some countries you are excluded from the Catholic church, or not held in good standing, if you don't pay the church state tax etc.

The church holds to the possibility of excommunication through a legitimate authority. But this isn't exercised regularly in practice. It tends to, far often, rely on the basis that an individual excommunicates themself, but can then also come back through individual reconciliation. Now it would seem better that a Catholic, with reservations on some points, is doing a better thing if they are willing to remain connected to the church body, rather than exclude themselves fully. It's a matter of degree. 

Sure, we could say this isn't all really particularly helpful as someone who is Catholic could still, in theory, isolate themselves from God in various ways. But I think we all do it to different degrees -  we are all under the cross for our sin, none are above it. We each have our crosses to carry, for some this is not having a natural inclincation towards certain beliefs for whatever reaon. For most of us we have to carry the cross of having people around us who don't share our own ideas, opinions and values at some point. Sinful faults are on par with sinful actions. The difference is behaviours are easier to see why they are harmful or good. They are also easier to rectify.  It's not so straight forward with ideas and beliefs.
 

Edited June 27, 2014 by Benedictus

[Perigrina]

Yes, but it doesn't say they stop being a Catholic even if they are excommunicated or such like. Of course the church has different levels of dealing with realities. In some countries you are excluded from the Catholic church, or not held in good standing, if you don't pay the church state tax etc.

 

It says that they stop being members of the Church.  Could you please clarify what distinction you are making between "Catholic" and "member of the Church" because these terms are interchangeable for me.

[Fidei Defensor]

Yes, but it doesn't say they stop being a Catholic even if they are excommunicated or such like. Of course the church has different levels of dealing with realities. In some countries you are excluded from the Catholic church, or not held in good standing, if you don't pay the church state tax etc.

The church holds to the possibility of excommunication through a legitimate authority. But this isn't exercised regularly in practice. It tends to, far often, rely on the basis that an individual excommunicates themself, but can then also come back through individual reconciliation. Now it would seem better that a Catholic, with reservations on some points, is doing a better thing if they are willing to remain connected to the church body, rather than exclude themselves fully. It's a matter of degree. 

Sure, we could say this isn't all really particularly helpful as someone who is Catholic could still, in theory, isolate themselves from God in various ways. But I think we all do it to different degrees -  we are all under the cross for our sin, none are above it. We each have our crosses to carry, for some this is not having a natural inclincation towards certain beliefs for whatever reaon. For most of us we have to carry the cross of having people around us who don't share our own ideas, opinions and values at some point. Sinful faults are on par with sinful actions. The difference is behaviours are easier to see why they are harmful or good. They are also easier to rectify.  It's not so straight forward with ideas and beliefs.
 

Can we bring back the use of the phrase "cafeteria Catholic?" I think that's where we're heading with this discussion. If we aren't comfortable defining what it means to "be" Catholic, we have to then allow for the idea that there are categories of Catholics such as "cafeteria" Catholics who pick and choose what they want to believe, even though the Church calls for full assent.

[Perigrina]

Can we bring back the use of the phrase "cafeteria Catholic?" I think that's where we're heading with this discussion. If we aren't comfortable defining what it means to "be" Catholic, we have to then allow for the idea that there are categories of Catholics such as "cafeteria" Catholics who pick and choose what they want to believe, even though the Church calls for full assent.

 

I am reasonably sure that many people find that term offensive.  Using a offensive term is not going to help the discussion.

[Fidei Defensor]

I am reasonably sure that many people find that term offensive.  Using a offensive term is not going to help the discussion.

The problem is, if I'm not allowed to point out that they aren't actually Catholic, what am I left with.

 

No, I completely understand. I should be seeing children of God. May the Lord forgive me and open my heart.