Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[fides' Jack]

[...]Besides, it is not even logical to infallibly decree infallibility, before one infallibly possesses infallibility. 

 

I can see why someone would struggle with this.  I have the same issues with Sola Scriptura.  (Some) Protestants believe the Bible is the only legitimate source of Divine Revelation.  But nowhere in the Bible is any allusion to anything like Sola Scriptura, so it doesn't recognize its own authority.

 

But this is not the same case.  As others are arguing here, the infallibility existed before it was decreed.  The decree was just the point where it became official teaching.  The true authority goes back directly to Christ.  "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven..." (any several other parts of the Bible).  This is what the Church teaches - that its own authority to define what is right and wrong comes directly from God.

[HisChildForever]

I used to wonder this too but if we dwell too much on it we might find ourselves feeling superior to those who either struggle with teaching or reject it outright. Everyone is on their own faith journey--people are complicated, life is complicated. It's better to graciously hear others out and meet them where they are than to try and force beliefs on them imo.

[Benedictus]

Orthodoxy is not a psychological problem.  It is what all Catholics should strive for.  

 

What you see in your professional work is irrelevant to the discussions here since it would be extremely unprofessional to analyze people based on their phorum posts.  Your constant implications about the psychological problems of people who take orthodox positions make you one of the most judgmental posters here.

 

I never said Orthodoxy was a psychological problem. You decided to twist my earlier point, so I come back to it. It's not irrelevant because you say it is. If I think it's relevant I will post about it. You made clear remarks about why people who don't agree with certain Catholic doctrines identify as Catholic. I outlined my points on that and I also outlined why some people can have an emotional problem with diversity in a religious organisation That is based on my experience, not speculation.

I never analysed anyone here based on anything. You took my posts to be about you. That's your choice -  If you want the hat to fit you then wear it. But I told you that wasn't the point.  I don't think I've written anything partcualrly judgemental about anyone. You're the person writing about homosexuals being wrong and starting this thread, not me. So maybe take a refresh at what you're doing before saying that I'm judgemental. What I've said is based on facts -  it's been written about many times over the last thirty years, at least, and it's part of what I encounter. You might not like it, but that's the truth of it. You may want to set yourself up as the Orthodox under attack, but this is folly. You only know about one or two things I've debated with you on here. So now you're somehow the Orthodox and I'm not. Whatever.

[Perigrina]

I used to wonder this too but if we dwell too much on it we might find ourselves feeling superior to those who either struggle with teaching or reject it outright. Everyone is on their own faith journey--people are complicated, life is complicated. It's better to graciously hear others out and meet them where they are than to try and force beliefs on them imo.

 

I was hoping that talking about it could help me to be more understanding, but, for the most part, this thread has not helped me.  I agree that it is a real temptation to feel superior and  it would not surprise me if others felt this way   But we must not allow ourselves to.  Orthodoxy without charity is meaningless and just about everybody can stand some improvement in charity.

[superblue]

So, exactly what would happen if Christ and the Holy Spirit took a time out from Heaven, popped on over to Vatican, and were like, woa okay, who wrote all of this ? An then busted out the ole red pen and started marking through things that the Church has declared said and done, and then wrote in some clarifications.  ???

 

Does the Vatican fall to pieces in leadership??Does the superiority complex butt grabbing of who really is a " catholic " on here come to an end??, or does everyone go ooooooooh okay thanks for clarifying that and simply moves on.

 

 

 

[superblue]

.  Orthodoxy without charity is meaningless and just about everybody can stand some improvement in charity.

Minus those on here and on C.A.F that are the authority on who qualifies as truly being Catholic.

[Credo in Deum]

So, exactly what would happen if Christ and the Holy Spirit took a time out from Heaven, popped on over to Vatican, and were like, woa okay, who wrote all of this ? An then busted out the ole red pen and started marking through things that the Church has declared said and done, and then wrote in some clarifications. ???

Does the Vatican fall to pieces in leadership??Does the superiority complex butt grabbing of who really is a " catholic " on here come to an end??, or does everyone go ooooooooh okay thanks for clarifying that and simply moves on.

[Perigrina]

I never said Orthodoxy was a psychological problem. You decided to twist my earlier point, so I come back to it. It's not irrelevant because you say it is. If I think it's relevant I will post about it. You made clear remarks about why people who don't agree with certain Catholic doctrines identify as Catholic. I outlined my points on that and I also outlined why some people can have an emotional problem with diversity in a religious organisation That is based on my experience, not speculation.

I never analysed anyone here based on anything. You took my posts to be about you. That's your choice -  If you want the hat to fit you then wear it. But I told you that wasn't the point.  I don't think I've written anything partcualrly judgemental about anyone. You're the person writing about homosexuals being wrong and starting this thread, not me. So maybe take a refresh at what you're doing before saying that I'm judgemental. What I've said is based on facts -  it's been written about many times over the last thirty years, at least, and it's part of what I encounter. You might not like it, but that's the truth of it. You may want to set yourself up as the Orthodox under attack, but this is folly. You only know about one or two things I've debated with you on here. So now you're somehow the Orthodox and I'm not. Whatever.

 

I do not take your posts to be about me.  I take them as an implied slur on every orthodox Catholic.  You talk about emotional problems associated with orthodoxy as if they were the main source of orthodoxy.  That is judgmental.

 

We should assume that Catholics take orthodox positions because they understand their obligations as Catholics and leave discussions of emotional problems to your "professional work".

 

There is nothing the slightest bit judgmental about accepting that Catholic teaching is true (from which it follows that homosexual behaviour is wrong and immoral).  Catholics should believe that Catholic teaching is true.

 

When one spells "Orthodox" with a capital O it refers to a different religion.  We have been discussing small o orthodoxy which is an attribute of Catholicism.  I have seen you take unorthodox positions and I do not see why I should not say so. 

[HisChildForever]

I was hoping that talking about it could help me to be more understanding, but, for the most part, this thread has not helped me.  I agree that it is a real temptation to feel superior and  it would not surprise me if others felt this way   But we must not allow ourselves to.  Orthodoxy without charity is meaningless and just about everybody can stand some improvement in charity.

 

Right. I like a lot of what Maggie said. I, too, used to have the "all-or-nothing" approach and found myself hyper critical of other Catholics, not to mention other people. It was spiritually damaging. I've since left my little bubble and have met all different kinds of people and my appreciation for my faith, their faith, and the human experience has deeply increased.

[Perigrina]

Right. I like a lot of what Maggie said. I, too, used to have the "all-or-nothing" approach and found myself hyper critical of other Catholics, not to mention other people. It was spiritually damaging. I've since left my little bubble and have met all different kinds of people and my appreciation for my faith, their faith, and the human experience has deeply increased.

 

I think it is fine to say "this is what the Church teaches and what all Catholics are obliged to believe"  but not to say "you do not believe what the Church teaches and therefore you are not a Catholic."

[CrossCuT]

Right. I like a lot of what Maggie said. I, too, used to have the "all-or-nothing" approach and found myself hyper critical of other Catholics, not to mention other people. It was spiritually damaging. I've since left my little bubble and have met all different kinds of people and my appreciation for my faith, their faith, and the human experience has deeply increased.

 

This is another post that I feel similarly with. I am glad you and Maggie spoke up.

[Benedictus]

I do not take your posts to be about me.  I take them as an implied slur on every orthodox Catholic.  You talk about emotional problems associated with orthodoxy as if they were the main source of orthodoxy.  That is judgmental.

 

We should assume that Catholics take orthodox positions because they understand their obligations as Catholics and leave discussions of emotional problems to your "professional work".

 

There is nothing the slightest bit judgmental about accepting that Catholic teaching is true (from which it follows that homosexual behaviour is wrong and immoral).  Catholics should believe that Catholic teaching is true.

 

When one spells "Orthodox" with a capital O it refers to a different religion.  We have been discussing small o orthodoxy which is an attribute of Catholicism.  I have seen you take unorthodox positions and I do not see why I should not say so. 

 

I never said orthodoxy was the main source of emotional problems. I said very often people who have emotional problems adopt a very doctrine focused stance and then enforce this mindset around them for psychological reasons. They have conflicts and act this out with others who they perceive as threats or dissenters.That is a fact. It isn't confined to any specific doctrine or religion, and could also apply to any philosophy or politics.

No -  if it's relevant then I will draw on my experience. I won't be told what to say and not say if it's relevant. You started the topic about why people stay within the church. I addressed that and why people who oppose them sometimes have a problem. If you're dealing with this seriously then you need to cover all the reasons why people remain Catholics and why people may draw a conflict. There are emotional implications and these are important. You seem to want to ignore the emotional reality of the issues. At a basic level it's normal to be confused, frustrated and angry over things. Why ignore that point?

I made a general point, not a slur on any specific group of catholics.  I don't think most faithful Catholics have psychological problems, but of course, I didn't say they did. Similarly the church, when sending people for assessment, doesn't think orthodox candidates are all unsound. But it is a fact that a certain type of candidate is suspected of emotional disturbance. That's a fact, and has been documented on and written about by priests and others for many years. Do you think the church and it's formators are judgemental against orthodox catholics. This seems to be what you're saying. if not, then how can my work be judgemental?

There is nothing judgemental about stating the obvious and agreed facts I outlined either. People maybe interested to know why some people can't handle dissent and why some may have very rigid views, outlooks and personality. Of course they may have other reasons for this. But it's worth bearing in mind not all people with orthodox views act in the same way.  It's not a judgement, it is what it is.

You don't have to agree with me. I'm not seeking it. But please don't try and downplay or control  my input to the discussion, regardless of what you think. And please don't accuse me of saying I'm judgemental 'to Catholics' for drawing on the truth of the work I do. Maybe just pass it over if you've nothing good to say.

Thanks for the point on the 'O' -  It seems you understood and wasn't any the less clear for the mishap. I'm glad. But there's me thinking there's only Catholics.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Benedictus

[Dr_Asik]

But what they did have was the entirely of revelation, given to them directly by God.

Otherwise, to assert that a dogma arose in its entirely at a later date, one would deny that revelation ceased at the end of the Apostolic age.

Yeah, the idea is that doctrine developed later was implicitely contained in Scripture and Tradition. This is in essence what the passage you quote of MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS argues. I just don't see how. Let me quote this later paragraph of the same document (emphasis mine):

 

41. Since the universal Church, within which dwells the Spirit of Truth who infallibly directs it toward an ever more perfect knowledge of the revealed truths, has expressed its own belief many times over the course of the centuries, and since the bishops of the entire world are almost unanimously petitioning that the truth of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven should be defined as a dogma of divine and Catholic faith--this truth which is based on the Sacred Writings, which is thoroughly rooted in the minds of the faithful, which has been approved in ecclesiastical worship from the most remote times, which is completely in harmony with the other revealed truths, and which has been expounded and explained magnificently in the work, the science, and the wisdom of the theologians - we believe that the moment appointed in the plan of divine providence for the solemn proclamation of this outstanding privilege of the Virgin Mary has already arrived.

 

Well, "based on the Sacred Writings" is an... interesting statement to make, since the document doesn't mention anything relevant in Scripture. My copy of "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Ludwig Ott states: "No direct and formal scriptural testimony exists".

 

And "the most remote times" should be taken with a grain of salt since all the "early tradition" Fathers it mentions are from the 7th and 8th centuries - hardly apostolic times.

 

I also take issue with the fact that most of the reasoning going on here is based another late dogma - the Immaculate Conception - which itself has only highly metaphorical scriptural basis. So we're getting pretty far in interpretation land and I'm just troubled that the ultimate category "dogma" was used to enshrine an idea so remote from Scripture and without even clear basis in early Church Tradition.

 

Note that I'm not denying the validity of the logic used to prove the idea, it's just that it seems inappropriate to put such theological speculation, be it as sound and universally believed as you want, under the label of infallible, core teaching. Many common Catholic beliefs are not dogmas ( - de fide); for example, that in case of necessity, baptism by water may be replaced by baptism of desire and baptism of blood. There's very good reason to hold that to be true, but it's not dogma because there wouldn't be solid enough basis to affirm that as absolutely certain and core to Christian faith, and there's no need to anyway. And I don't see why the same doesn't apply to the Assumption of Mary.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Nihil Obstat]

So, exactly what would happen if Christ and the Holy Spirit took a time out from Heaven, popped on over to Vatican, and were like, woa okay, who wrote all of this ? An then busted out the ole red pen and started marking through things that the Church has declared said and done, and then wrote in some clarifications.  ???

 

Does the Vatican fall to pieces in leadership??Does the superiority complex butt grabbing of who really is a " catholic " on here come to an end??, or does everyone go ooooooooh okay thanks for clarifying that and simply moves on.

Yeah, that happened to the Jews. It was called Pentecost.

[Nihil Obstat]

Yeah, the idea is that doctrine developed later was implicitely contained in Scripture and Tradition. This is in essence what the passage you quote of MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS argues. I just don't see how. Let me quote this later paragraph of the same document (emphasis mine):

 

 

Well, "based on the Sacred Writings" is an... interesting statement to make, since the document doesn't mention anything relevant in Scripture. My copy of "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Ludwig Ott states: "No direct and formal scriptural testimony exists".

 

And "the most remote times" should be taken with a grain of salt since all the "early tradition" Fathers it mentions are from the 7th and 8th centuries - hardly apostolic times.

 

I also take issue with the fact that most of the reasoning going on here is based another late dogma - the Immaculate Conception - which itself has only highly metaphorical scriptural basis. So we're getting pretty far in interpretation land and I'm just troubled that the ultimate category "dogma" was used to enshrine an idea so remote from Scripture and without even clear basis in early Church Tradition.

 

Note that I'm not denying the validity of the logic used to prove the idea, it's just that it seems inappropriate to put such theological speculation, be it as sound and universally believed as you want, under the label of infallible, core teaching. Many common Catholic beliefs are not dogmas ( - de fide); for example, that in case of necessity, baptism by water may be replaced by baptism of desire and baptism of blood. There's very good reason to hold that to be true, but it's not dogma because there wouldn't be solid enough basis to affirm that as absolutely certain and core to Christian faith, and there's no need to anyway. And I don't see why the same doesn't apply to the Assumption of Mary.

Unfortunately for you, it is dogma, therefore all Catholics must believe it. And the Church saw fit to proclaim it dogma specifically because we came to a very certain definitive realization, albeit at a somewhat later date, that this universal belief of the Church had been held and taught since time immemorial.