dairygirl4u2c Posted February 16, 2004 Posted February 16, 2004 (edited) Is it wrong for a Catholic to reject a teaching after she asked and studied a teaching and isn't being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn but is being stubborn for the sake of the Truth because she doesn't think the teaching has been defined correctly? Edited February 16, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c
Laudate_Dominum Posted February 16, 2004 Posted February 16, 2004 It depends on the teachings because some teachings are not definitive. To deny a definitive teaching of the Church outright is formal heresy, not dissent. Dissent, by definition, is to differ in opinion. The Church's definitive and dogmatic teachings are not opinions but are the doctrines of Jesus Christ entrusted to His Church through the Holy Spirit. If you believe that the Church is Christ's Church then it should be possible to believe even if you don't understand. That is part of having faith in Christ. I do not understand logically how God became man, but I believe it is true. Similarly if I had a hard time understanding say, the Church's teaching on contraception (which I don't), I would still believe it because mother Church knows best. Perhaps you haven't studied enough. Fides quarens intellectum, as the medievals would say (faith seeking understanding). The Church doesn't propose teachings so that we can doubt and disbelieve until its proven. We trust that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth and cannot formally teach error on matters of faith and morals. Peace
Ellenita Posted February 16, 2004 Posted February 16, 2004 If it concerns an infallible teaching on doctrine and morals, then yes, because it would take you 'out of communion' with the one Holy Catholic church, and her infallible teaching is Truth, timeless, and bigger than our personal opinion. On other matters, maybe it's more difficult to be so definate about whether it is 'right or wrong'. However, how do you know your definition of the teaching is correct? Personal interpretation of teaching is always open to question - my interpretation of the same teaching could be completely different! Have you talked to a priest about the issue?
Dave Posted February 16, 2004 Posted February 16, 2004 Is it wrong for a Catholic to reject a teaching after she asked and studied a teaching and isn't being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn but is being stubborn for the sake of the Truth because she doesn't think the teaching has been defined correctly? A Catholic who has made up his/her mind that a given Church teaching hasn't been defined correctly is putting his/her feelings and opinions above God and His infallible Church.
ironmonk Posted February 16, 2004 Posted February 16, 2004 Is it wrong for a Catholic to reject a teaching after she asked and studied a teaching and isn't being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn but is being stubborn for the sake of the Truth because she doesn't think the teaching has been defined correctly? Yes. It is stubborn to go against the Official Church teaching, it does not matter that the person feels that they studied it. To say the Church is wrong is to say that Christ is wrong... Christ speaks to us through His Church. The Church is guided in ALL Truth. The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Therefore the Church can never be wrong. John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, 17 the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. 1 Tim 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" In all reality, someone who goes against the Church teaching is actually going against God. This person would be doing the same thing that Eve did. Satan uses man's pride against us. It is foolish pride to think that we are above the Church that Christ established to teach us in all truth. We see Satan using Eve's pride against her and Adam. Eve believed the lie from Satan that she deserves to eat of the tree of knowledge so to be like God... This is the original sin; to go against what God commands. To reject the Church teachings because "we" are wiser and more knowledgable than the Church on a matter makes us just as guilty as Eve. Remember this verse... Proverbs 16:25 Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but the end of it leads to death! Your Servant in Christ, ironmonk
M.SIGGA Posted February 16, 2004 Posted February 16, 2004 Ironmonk is absolutly right. In doubt or disagreement, pray over it and for the strength to overcome and be enlightend by the Truth and accept what ever your nature is in disagreement. St. Therese had doubts and spiritual trials over the existence of God, and her response wasn't to leave the Carmel; instead she spoke her famous quote, In the midst of the storm of my struggle to have faith, I will continue to pray and praise your Name. God knows people are human and weak and struggle, but never take the easiest human way out and dissent from Church teaching. Struggle with it, don't go against it. If teaching on doctrine isn't left up to the Church, or the Church's authority becomes nothing more than another opinion, then what justifies the validity of one human opinion's over another?
cmotherofpirl Posted February 16, 2004 Posted February 16, 2004 Is it wrong for a Catholic to reject a teaching after she asked and studied a teaching and isn't being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn but is being stubborn for the sake of the Truth because she doesn't think the teaching has been defined correctly? We do not have to understand every detail of something to accept it. I do not understand every detail of my sons car engine to ride in it. I do not have to understand transubstantiation to know Jesus is present in the Eucharist. I accept the first because of faith in my son. I understand the second because of faith in the God that says so. Faith is not predicated on understanding, faith in many cases comes before understanding. If God wants me to understand a particular doctrine better, the Holy Spirit will enlighten me in some way. And if he doesn't that is ok as well. I don't have to understand everything to be a faithful Catholic. THat is why Catholicisim is so simple that a child can understand it, and so hard some geniuses never get it. A child understands faith, a genius demands comprehension of all the details before he considers believing something. So yes it is wrong to reject a teaching because you don't understand it. Accept the teaching and wait for the understanding to come later. If it is crucial, it will come. Ask and you shall recieve, knock and it shall be opened. Say a prayer to the Holy Spirit to enlighten you. Some times the answer comes from study, sometimes thru other people, sometimes you simply have to get much further along in your faith journey to realize you had the answer right along. THe Holy Spirit works in each of us differently. Some we must wait for a particular answer, simply because God is letting us work on our patience and faithfulness to His word. God's word is Truth, and we will never in our tiny lifetime's have much more than an inkling of the details. Read the Catechism, Church documents etc in the mean time, and simply go about being a faithful Catholic, knowing that the Lord will answer you in His own good time.
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 16, 2004 Author Posted February 16, 2004 (edited) Well see I'm not saying that the Church is wrong. I'd be saying that the issue wasn't defined properly. Like back in the day people used to say that if you didn't go to Church and listen to the pope you would go to hell since there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. The pope at the second Vatican said that the definition of Catholic church was interpreted wrong by everyone back in the day. No salvation outside the church still is true, but he said it's more broader than what they thought. Something along the lines of development of doctrine or sumthin. So in this specific example, if I were living back in the day and said I thought that people outside the official church could be saved even though they did not follow the Church in the official manner... since they didn't know any better... I would have been deemed a heretic. right? Would I have been immoral to think differently than what everyone.. everyone.. was telling me? I asked this somewhere else and they said I should give the benefit of the doubt to the heirarchy but the question would remain, would I have been immoral even though I was correct? Edited February 16, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c
Dave Posted February 16, 2004 Posted February 16, 2004 Dairygirl: Doctrine does develop, but you're forgetting something major. While, over time, the Church comes to gain new insights into doctrines and understand them more. it NEVER understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.
phatcatholic Posted February 16, 2004 Posted February 16, 2004 Would I have been immoral to think differently than what everyone.. everyone.. was telling me? I asked this somewhere else and they said I should give the benefit of the doubt to the heirarchy but the question would remain, would I have been immoral even though I was correct? dairygirl, i would say yes. afterall, our understanding of "outside the church no salvation" has changed over the years, but the essentials of the doctrine remain the same. so, whereas ur understanding of it today is acceptable, it would not have been then, and is actually not even acceptable now to those catholics who still maintain the earlier understanding of the phrase. i for one accept the post-Vatican II interpretation, for it is what has been set forth by the Vicar of Christ and, in my opinion, seems to be more in accordance w/ God's abundant grace and mercy. others may have more informed and articulated thoughts on the issue..... pax christi, phatcatholic
Dave Posted February 16, 2004 Posted February 16, 2004 And here's an article on salvation for non-Catholics. It's primarily geared toward refuting Feeneyites, namely, those that claim that no one but baptized Catholics can be saved (which, BTW, the Church has NEVER taught): http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/eens.html
Laudate_Dominum Posted February 16, 2004 Posted February 16, 2004 That's a bomb article Dave. I don't even feel like saying what I was going to say because that article says it better. I highly recommend reading it dairygirl. Peace
phatcatholic Posted February 16, 2004 Posted February 16, 2004 dude, that article is hard-core useful. when the reference section comes to "Salvation" i will make sure i include it. thanks Dave! i second LaudDom, anyone who is confused on this issue must read that article.
ironmonk Posted February 17, 2004 Posted February 17, 2004 Would I have been immoral to think differently than what everyone.. everyone.. was telling me? "everyone" is not the Church. There are a few of meanings of the word Church... There is the Church as a teacher (i.e. Pope, Bishops, Priests; Magisterium) There is the Church as in the whole Church; Clergy and laymen alike. Then there is the building itself. When you go against the Magisterium, you are going against God. What is it when someone goes against God? Why is this so hard to understand? Are you wiser than God? Do you know more about right and wrong than God? What determines right and wrong? No man can.... Only God. There is no debating. If God says something is wrong, then it is wrong... doesn't matter if someone disagrees. Who in their right mind would tell God that He was wrong? Your Servant in Christ, ironmonk
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 17, 2004 Author Posted February 17, 2004 (edited) I think you misunderstood my question. Or are you saying that the Pope and others "back in the day" would say that people outside of the Church could be saved? I think you might want to check up on that cuz I'm pretty sure everyone... including the magisterium... thought that you had to be a church going Catholic to be saved. Pope John Paul II said that they.. ie magisterium, pope, people.. had too narrow a definition of the word Catholic. So would I have been immoral to not belief what everyone back in the day believed when I insisted that my take on the word Catholic that JP2 teaches was correct and their's wasn't? I think I may have found the answer ironically in the other section called "dissent in the church": Canon 752: While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the college of Bishops, exercising their authentic <magisterium,> declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine. But is this saying that I am being immoral for religious submission to the Truth? Edited February 17, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c
Mateo el Feo Posted February 17, 2004 Posted February 17, 2004 The pope at the second Vatican said that the definition of Catholic church was interpreted wrong by everyone back in the day. I wonder about this statement. Would you quote the Vatican II document (LG?)/passage that you're referring to? God bless, Mateo
phatcatholic Posted February 17, 2004 Posted February 17, 2004 dairyG, did my most recent response not answer your question? you may want to check back on page one. if u have questions still, just let me know. pax christi, phatcatholic
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 19, 2004 Author Posted February 19, 2004 Yeah you answered my question well Phatcatholic, thanx. I was just wanting to talk with ironmonk some more cuz he didn't answer my question and in fact I don't think he even read my post very well in the first place.
_bc Posted February 22, 2004 Posted February 22, 2004 Maybe we should also consider the odds that we happen to be the first one to stumble upon an improvement to doctrine. Really, which is more likely: that the Church has overlooked something we know, or that we have overlooked something the Church knows?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now