Do I have to believe everything the Catholic church believes to be Catholic? - Page 3

[cagnew]

I'm not saying there weren't problems before Vatican II, because I realize that there were. In fact, problems have come up throughout all of Church history. This is expected because we are humans and we err. The Church has always answered major problems.

There was much more to the Vatican II Coucil than the clergy just answering certain abuses and problems within the Church.

The documents of Vatican II were worded very vaguely. Furthermore, they were not properly related to the clergy and Catholic public. Many of the things that happened after VII, and many of the changes that took place were not ordered in VII... they just sort of happened due to lack of proper education.

A few good things DID come out of Vatican II, but it is my personal belief that those things were God bringing good out of something mostly not good. There is a lot of debate among Catholics about this issue, and I am just stating what I think. Please don't think that I am attacking you or anyone else who disagrees.

[mammal_mama]

About hell -- no I could not shield my child if she committed murder. But eternal punishment? That's not something that even the most heinous prison system could do.

I understand that my child could willfully separate herself from me -- but as for me, my door would always remain open for her to return to me. As a human, I am limited as to how long I could keep my door open because I might die or develop Alzheimer's or something and not even remember who she is.

But God, not being subject to our human limitations, IS able to always keep the door open for His children to return. Since I think a huge component of love is being willing to forgive and restore to the extent that we are able, I can't comprehend GOD not being able/willing to forgive and restore without limitation.

And since God is not bound by time as we are, I think forgiving "without limitation" would include not being limited by time.

But of course that's a whole 'nuther thread. I don't want to argue the Catechism here -- I just think the hell-teaching is one reason why I'll probably just need to stay "Ecumenical" in my approach rather than joining.

[mammal_mama]

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/un..._catholic.html

Interesting article asserting that universal salvation has been a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Catechism ever since Vatican II. I'll have to study up on this more.

Edited to add: I'm not sure if it's been part of the Catechism EVER SINCE Vatican II -- the article just says it's in the new Catechism, and I'm not sure whether that was written immediately after Vatican II or not.

[CherryBomb]

There are a lot of Catholics who don't follow Church teachings. That doesn't make it okay, and really I find it perplexing when people insinuate that because "most" Catholics use birth control (or whatever) it's okay to ignore the Church. It's not. I personally do not understand converting to a religion and then disregarding core tenants. It would be like me converting to Orthodox Judaism and then eating pork because it "felt right" to me. I might still be a Jew, but that wouldn't suddenly make eating pork okay for all Jews, would it? (sorry for the bad analogy, it was the first thing I thought of) So someone said in a disparaging way earlier that many Catholics here are more conservative than most. And? That doesn't prove or disprove anything. Truth is Truth, it's irrelevant how many Catholics accept it. If 99% of Catholics rejected Transubstantiation, what would that mean? Would the Eucharist suddenly cease to truly be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ? No.

It just seems intellectually dishonest and completely illogical. I don't mean that in a hurtful way, I just honestly don't get it. If the Church is wrong about abortion and homosexuality (to name a few of the more contentious issues) then she's a liar and she's not the Church she claims to be, so why would anyone want to be a member? It honestly confuses me!

And if we say the Church is wrong on abortion, homosexuality, male priesthood, etc, why not keep going and say the Church is wrong on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? Or Transubstantiation? Or the Divinity of Christ? Where does it end? The whole reason Christ gave us this Church was to guide us on these things. It isn't the Church condemning birth control or female priesthood, it's God. The Church is just here to help us understand and live according to His will. No one ever said it would be easy or it would always make us feel good.

That said, it's not my place to judge the state of anyone's soul or their sincerity. So I don't.

[athansor]

Originally Posted by CherryBomb

T
It just seems intellectually dishonest and completely illogical. I don't mean that in a hurtful way, I just honestly don't get it. If the Church is wrong about abortion and homosexuality (to name a few of the more contentious issues) then she's a liar and she's not the Church she claims to be, so why would anyone want to be a member? It honestly confuses me!

And if we say the Church is wrong on abortion, homosexuality, male priesthood, etc, why not keep going and say the Church is wrong on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? Or Transubstantiation? Or the Divinity of Christ? Where does it end?

If we go this route, however, then wouldn't we have to accept that the Church is never wrong? Historically, though, the Church has been wrong on many things. (inquisition, astronomy, the crusades, translating the Bible, and slavery come to mind). What would one say to a medieval Catholic who was opposed to the inquisition? Would it have been best to just tell them they shouldn't be in the Church if they don't agree with it, or better to tell them to stay in the Church and work to change it?

It seems that you could look at Church doctrine and divide it into two categories, things that are essential to being a Catholic (Divinity of Christ, Transubstantiation) and things that might evolve over time (like the celibacy of priests, which is a change from the early Church, or fasting during Lent, which has changed form in my lifetime). The question is, where do things like female priests and homosexuality fall in this division of issues? Are they issues that are essential to being a Catholic, or are they something that might evolve over time?

I also wonder, is it reasonable to say that some things aren't acceptable to Catholics, but shouldn't be outlawed for society as a whole. For instance, the Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce or sanction artificial birth control. However, there isn't a big movement to try to make either of those illegal. The Catholic Church also doesn't recognize gay marriage. So, would it be going against the Church to say that one thinks gay marriage should remain legal, but the Catholic Church should be allowed to not recognize and not have to perform same-sex marriage?

[mammal_mama]

athansor -- you make a great point when you ask whether it's better for people who disagree to leave -- or to stay and help work a change from within.

After all, historically the Catholic Church seems to have not been in favor of people breaking off and creating schisms -- so why not try to stay one big happy family (or at least family that's working at getting along and being happy together)?

I just wanted to mention I had a wonderful time at the Catholic Worker Clarification Meeting I went to tonight (I've discovered a Catholic Worker house in my neighborhood). I shared more in detail about it in the "Catholicism and Inclusiveness" thread.

[cagnew]

cherry: "yeah that"

athansr: issues like women priests and gay marriage do not fall into the little "t" traditions. They are connected to much bigger, more basic doctrines that do not change. To change beliefs such as those would be to change some very fundamental beliefs in the Church, and the Church would no longer be the Church.

You mention fasting. Catholics still have to fast during lent. In fact, Catholics are still suppose to make some kind of sacrifice on all Fridays of the year. My family doesn't eat meat on any Fridays just because that's the first sacrifice that comes to mind. But during lent, you are to abstain specifically from eating meat.

Yes, priests were married in the early Church. People love to bring that up But then it changed and there are very good reasons for that. IT's been that way for... gosh, how many years now? Priests have an enormous responisbility abd having a wife and children on top of that would interfere with what they need to do. Priests are men who have been called by God to dedicate themselves to Him alone. They are called to celibacy (no sex) because they are set aside that way. Our culture has failed to see the sacredness of virginity and chastity. Priests (and non-married people) are called to dominate their passions. Contrary to some popular beliefs, we are not animals and we do not have to act like animals. We CAN control ourselves. Christ calls us to be a master of our flesh... not to allow our flesh to control us.

Sorry for the ramble. NOthing seems like it's coming out worded very well this morning, so sorry if this is unclear at times.

Anyway, as I have said before, there is a reason for every single Chruch custom and tradition and law. All of these things that everyone keeps protesting to are aspects of the Church that are very beautiful and loving... they are a reflection of God's love for His people.

The Catholic Church is not a democracy. It never will be. But no one HAS to be part of it, so it doesn't matter.

ps- the inquisition and crusades were not totally bad things. that's another very misunderstood part of church history. yes, there were abuses, but thats because people are human and humans sin. just because some people do bad things in an organization doesn't mean the whole organization is wrong.

[CherryBomb]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

athansor -- you make a great point when you ask whether it's better for people who disagree to leave -- or to stay and help work a change from within.

Well again, I think it helps to apply this to other religions, as well, to get some perspective. What about Jews who come to accept Christ? Do you support them continuing to go to Temple and trying to bring other Jews to Christ? There is a group that does that, Jews for Jesus, and they aren't very popular with the Jewish mothers on this board from what I've seen. It seems like it's easy for people to see why it's totally inappropriate and disrespectful when it happens in non-Christian religions. I don't understand the discrepancy.

Celibate priesthood is a small "t" tradition. It could be changed and it's okay for a Catholic to to support married priesthood without placing themselves outside the Church. Female priesthood, however is dogmatic and big "T" Tradition, and so one can not actively support it without placing themselves outside of the Church. The Church takes that one so seriously that any woman who becomes "ordained" is automatically excommunicated.

If we go this route, however, then wouldn't we have to accept that the Church is never wrong?

Absolutely not. As I said, the Church is made up of mortal men and women who sin and are wrong. There have been Popes that were not terribly moral men. But they were still Vicars of Christ, and their sin doesn't discount their ability to speak authoritatively on doctrinal matters. I don't have time to go over everything you mentioned, but regarding slavery, since at least the 1500s (and probably earlier) the Church has spoken out against slavery. And she was not popular for it! It was very common, "every one" was doing it, and she was effectively told to "get with the times!" Thank God she didn't!

The question is, where do things like female priests and homosexuality fall in this division of issues? Are they issues that are essential to being a Catholic, or are they something that might evolve over time?

I touched on this above, but I wanted to come back to eat. As cagnew pointed out, Catholics are bound to fasting on Fridays during Lent, and are also supposed to perform some act of sacrifice on all Fridays throughout the year. A lot of Catholics don't realize that, though Anyway, female priesthood and homosexuality are not at all the same as priestly celibacy. The first two are unchangeable dogma (and have been declared such by the Church) while clerical celibacy is a disciplinary rule, NOT a dogma. And it is flexible- there are some married priests (this generally only happens if he were already married and a priest in a denomination such as Lutheranism, and then converted).

There's a lot of theology behind why those are totally different issues, but I'm supposed to be leaving in like half an hour and I'm not even dressed

Real quick regarding secular laws and Church teaching, one can't actively support anything forbidden by the Church. But, if it's already legal, we aren't required or expected to change it (thought we aren't forbidden from trying!) So the difference between gay marriage and divorce at the moment is that divorce is already legal. Gay marriage isn't. Plus I'd point out that the Church does not recognize secular divorce. You can get one but you're still considered married in the eyes of God and the Church unless it's been annulled, and are expected to act accordingly (ie no dating or remarriage).

[BMG580]

Originally Posted by athansor

It seems that you could look at Church doctrine and divide it into two categories, things that are essential to being a Catholic (Divinity of Christ, Transubstantiation) and things that might evolve over time (like the celibacy of priests, which is a change from the early Church, or fasting during Lent, which has changed form in my lifetime). The question is, where do things like female priests and homosexuality fall in this division of issues? Are they issues that are essential to being a Catholic, or are they something that might evolve over time?

Your first paragraph relates specifically to the differences in disciplines (ie. priestly celibacy), doctrine (ie. Mass liturgy) and dogma (ie. life issues). Church teaching is very nuanced and cannot be shuffled into one large pile of "sameness". All dogma is doctrine but not all doctrine is dogma. Disciplines are areas of teaching that the Church has adopted (generally they are external practices) in which the Church believes helps its members lead holy lives. If a Catholic is simply fasting because it is a rule and is receiving no spiritual benefit then those external disciplines fall into rote routines that are rather meaningless IMO. Disciplines can most easily change over time due to cultural norms and other factors, I am thinking of things like fasting practices and recommendations, head coverings for women in Church, and yes, priestly celibacy. Doctrine can shift and change over time but it is generally slow and doctrine can never refute dogmas of the Church. Dogma is set in stone and can never change.

[athansor]

Originally Posted by cagnew

cherry: "yeah that"



ps- the inquisition and crusades were not totally bad things. that's another very misunderstood part of church history. yes, there were abuses, but thats because people are human and humans sin. just because some people do bad things in an organization doesn't mean the whole organization is wrong.

I'm not sure how you can defend the inquisition and the crusades. I don't know what good came out of them, but I do know that they both had a pretty significant death toll. I don't think the Catholic Church as an organization is in some way wrong because of what was done in the past, but I think that it has changed in part because people stayed in the Church and worked to change things they didn't believe in.

I'm not some outsider here who doesn't know anything about the Catholic Church. I was a Catholic for more than 35 years and am currently feeling drawn to return to the Church.

[athansor]

Originally Posted by CherryBomb

Real quick regarding secular laws and Church teaching, one can't actively support anything forbidden by the Church. But, if it's already legal, we aren't required or expected to change it (thought we aren't forbidden from trying!) So the difference between gay marriage and divorce at the moment is that divorce is already legal. Gay marriage isn't. Plus I'd point out that the Church does not recognize secular divorce. You can get one but you're still considered married in the eyes of God and the Church unless it's been annulled, and are expected to act accordingly (ie no dating or remarriage).

I recognize the Church doesn't accept secular divorce (sadly, I know a bit about the annulment process and may have to learn a lot more about it if I do end up coming back to the Church). The thing is, the Church seems to do fine existing in a society that allows divorce. Members of the Church know that they have to live up to a different standard and that the Church doesn't recognize divorce. Why couldn't the same situation evolve for gay marriage? How does it harm the Church if two non-Catholics get married, even if they are of the same sex?

Or to put it another way, in the Philippines, where I believe divorce is illegal, if there was a movement to change the law to make it legal (to perhaps give people a way to get out of abusive marriages), would Catholics be obligated to fight to keep it illegal?

[Bluegoat]

If the issue is whether Catholics can support legal civil marriage for homosexuals, while maintaining that it cannot be part of what the Church teaches or accepts, in the same way that they can allow civil divorce without allowing divorce in the Church, then I would say the answer is maybe.

Generally, the Church has directed that Catholics should oppose attempts to make gay civil marriage legal. However, I think that if someone wanted to support it civilly, with the idea of not imposing their religious convictions on the population, they would not be abandoning the Church to a degree that it would be inconsistent of them to remain a Catholic.

Similarly, Catholics could maintain that it might be a better idea for Latin rite priests to be able to marry, perhaps according to the same guidelines of other Catholic rite priests, which are more in line with those of the early Church. The reasons the Church doesn't allow it are practical, not theological.

But women as priests, birth control, abortion, and gay marriage within the Church are theological and moral issues, and disagreeing with them suggests a deeper disagreement with the fundamental understandings of the Church.

All of this is why it is important to understand the reasons for the Churches stance on these issues- some things are fundamental, others are not.

As far as things like the inquisition and the crusades. These generally fall under practical policies, rather than theological positions and dogma or even doctrine. That being said, it is true that there is a lot of misunderstanding around them - the Spanish Inquisition is an excellent example, being primarily a political venture by a nation rather than a policy of the Church.

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

As far as things like the inquisition and the crusades. These generally fall under practical policies, rather than theological positions and dogma or even doctrine. That being said, it is true that there is a lot of misunderstanding around them - the Spanish Inquisition is an excellent example, being primarily a political venture by a nation rather than a policy of the Church.

I would not want to derail the discussion too much, but I have to say this would be difficult to demonstrate, if "policy of the Pope" is equivalent to "policy of the Church." Look at the Papal encyclicals which supported or directed Inquisition practices, like the use of torture, not to mention the fact that a recent Pope formally apologized for the Inquisition. I have no doubt politics were involved, but at the very least, it was done with the knowledge and tacit consent of RC church authorities.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by mamabadger

I would not want to derail the discussion too much, but I have to say this would be difficult to demonstrate, if "policy of the Pope" is equivalent to "policy of the Church." Look at the Papal encyclicals which supported or directed Inquisition practices, like the use of torture, not to mention the fact that a recent Pope formally apologized for the Inquisition. I have no doubt politics were involved, but at the very least, it was done with the knowledge and tacit consent of RC church authorities.

There was in fact opposition to the Spanish Inquisition within Rome and the papacy - it was not popular. It was a Spanish nationalist policy. Even, or especially, within Catholic nations, there were constant power plays against Rome. The inquisition was a complicated institution, and people tend to talk about it without knowing much about it.

[chfriend]

Bluegoat, I'm wondering....You are not a Roman Catholic, but you seem to enjoy defending the Catholic church's past and defining the Catholic Faith. Is your interest in Roman Catholicism academic? Or is Episcopalianism close enough that you feel a personal interest in the direction of the church? Or do you just enjoy a good debate about these sorts of issues?

[athansor]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

There was in fact opposition to the Spanish Inquisition within Rome and the papacy - it was not popular. It was a Spanish nationalist policy. Even, or especially, within Catholic nations, there were constant power plays against Rome. The inquisition was a complicated institution, and people tend to talk about it without knowing much about it.

I think that no matter how you look at the inquisitions and the crusades, one has to admit that at one time the Church sanctioned torture, imprisonment and execution for some crimes of heresy and apostasy. We also recognize that this is no longer the case. So, the question is, how do you deal with the difficult things in Church history? Can you reconcile Church history with the viewpoint that the Church has never been wrong? How do those of us connected with the Church deal with the history of the Church, especially the darker parts, and how does it relates to whats currently going on?

[carmel23]

The Catholic faith has a very rich tradition of basing faith on reason. The entire philosophical position of the Catholic Church is very well thought out and based on natural law.

So it isn't just the opinion of the Church--there are thousands and thousands of pages written defending, explaining and illuminating the position of the church, especially on the two points you touch on, and two points that are very important to families.

I think that it is the duty for all Catholics to find out what the church teaches and if you disagree, read and read and think and think and talk to other Catholics about it. You can't just say, well, I disagree and leave it at that. People have the ability to think, and faith is built on reason. Faith begins where reason ends...

There are some really good talks on Theology of the Body that explain WHY the Catholic church opposes contraception. If the first thing you come across doesn't make sense to you, look for another.

And finally, if you still are struggling with it, just say, "I don't understand this, but I am trying."

and go to the source: the Church has a great web site with lots of information:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...unions_en.html

[athansor]

Originally Posted by carmel23

I think that it is the duty for all Catholics to find out what the church teaches and if you disagree, read and read and think and think and talk to other Catholics about it. You can't just say, well, I disagree and leave it at that. People have the ability to think, and faith is built on reason. Faith begins where reason ends...

Excellent advice!

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by athansor

I think that no matter how you look at the inquisitions and the crusades, one has to admit that at one time the Church sanctioned torture, imprisonment and execution for some crimes of heresy and apostasy. We also recognize that this is no longer the case. So, the question is, how do you deal with the difficult things in Church history? Can you reconcile Church history with the viewpoint that the Church has never been wrong? How do those of us connected with the Church deal with the history of the Church, especially the darker parts, and how does it relates to whats currently going on?

Yes, I agree. Certainly the Church has never suggested that there is no development even in doctrine, much less practice. And it's claims to Truth are also limited, even its claims as an institution. No one is actually asked to believe that the church has never been wrong.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by chfriend

Bluegoat, I'm wondering....You are not a Roman Catholic, but you seem to enjoy defending the Catholic church's past and defining the Catholic Faith. Is your interest in Roman Catholicism academic? Or is Episcopalianism close enough that you feel a personal interest in the direction of the church? Or do you just enjoy a good debate about these sorts of issues?

All of the above?

I am actually Anglican, rather than Episcopalian - we don't have Episcopalians in Canada, and not all American Anglicans are Episcopalians any more. I also have an interest in religion in general, so I figure if I can explain the POV of a group to someone who wants to know, I will. I don't always agree with it, but I don't usually mention that while I'm trying to explain the reasons the group holds it - it seems like a conflict of interest. Roman Catholicism is of course in many ways very close to classical Anglicanism, and even now there is still a fair bit of influence that goes between them at some levels.

In a discussion about the history of the Church though, I do feel like I have a vested interest. The history of the Catholic Church before the Reformation is part of MY history, just as the history before the Great Schism the history of Orthodoxy is part of my history - they don't actually exist as seperate churches. Anglicanism grows out of the history of the Western Church as much as Roman Catholicism does - though occasionally one meets RCs who think it was somehow imported from outer space. ( From the other point of view you could say that the history of the Church in England or Germany, before the Reformation, was part of the history of Catholicism and modern day Roman Catholics can count its thinking, customs etc as part of their heritage.) Generally when talking about the early Christians I just say the Church for that reason, or sometimes the Western Church.

And discussing theology is a good way to begin to appreciate the finer points of it, and to understand another POV the best way is to defend it, and even try to emotionally invest in it to some extent. It's hard to have understanding without love.