Why Is The Authority Of The Church So Difficult To Accept?

[LaPetiteSoeur]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1311360773' post='2273922']
I can think of two causes: poor catechesis and misplaced anger/blame regarding the actions of some priests & bishops.
Sadly, many church volunteers are not qualified to teach to faith to others. A close friend of mine actually said to me that she has a hard time believing that God would send someone to hell just for being gay. I asked her where she got that idea. Her answer was her confirmation class. I was so angry that I wanted to throw up. I implored her to actually research the teachings of the Magisterium rather than trust her class, but she no longer even cares enough to bother.

Another thing to consider is that, for cradle Catholics more so than converts, Catholicism is as much of a culture as it is a religion. This happens in many older religions. I know many people who identify themselves as Catholic, fast during Lent, but only go to mass on Christmas and Easter. It's not very different than a Jewish friend of mine who eats his bacon cheeseburger without the bun during Passover (really - I did not make this up and it's not 3rd hand - I know this guy).
[/quote]

[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/like.gif[/img]

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1311360590' post='2273919']
TB, something else that may help you understand parishioners better - some cradle Catholics have a stronger "Catholic culture" than Catholic theology. By which I mean, they've heard a lot of this stuff all their lives, it may have been taught to them, they may be able to repeat it, but they may not have seriously [i]thought[/i] about it and incorporated it into their lives.

It's one of the dangers (that may be too strong a word - pitfalls? possible negative outcomes?) of sending children through Catholic schools K-12 - they wear the uniform, sit through the religion classes, make their First Communion and Confirmation because Mom & Dad say it's time to do that, and so forth. For that matter, Mom & Dad may be requiring the child to make First Communion and Confirmation just to make Grandma & Grandpa happy, or because that's what they did when they were that age. For these people, the religion is more of a culture than a commitment.

As an intelligent, thoughtful, serious, and educated person, you made a conscious examination of theology and an intellectual-emotional commitment to the tenets of the faith. For some Catholics, that's all just the background of their lives.

I guess it would be like growing up on some mountaintop with a spectacular view - if you've looked at it all you're life, you may get to the point where you're at all impressed by it any more. I think we discussed a similar topic a few months ago, about trying to keep prayer fresh, our relationship with God meaningful, that sort of thing.

Don't be too hard on parishioners who fall into this category, but you will need to find some way to make their religion fresh and meaningful for them.
[/quote]

[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/clap2.gif[/img]

[Sarah147]

Someone once said that you have to let go of trying to understand everything when it comes to accepting the Church. I think people have trouble living by faith.

A Protestant once said that if people would live how God asks, that it will transform their lives and they would see it is divine.


I pray people will do these things.

[Socrates]

[quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1311359119' post='2273905']
In which case the Church itself has been guilty of heresy. Just one example being its change of belief in geocentricy to heliocentricy which eventually led to JP2 appologising posthumously to Galillo for accusing him of heresy and lifting the edict of the Inquisition against him. God had used Galillo as an instrument of revelation of the nature of His creation, and eventually the Church caught up.




Personally things like this actually increase my faith in the supremacy of the Church - where there are individual beliefs and opinions that I am uncomfortable with I know I can believe the Church's teaching on them safe in the knowledge that the hierarchy is continuously discerning and is not afraid to adjust its teaching if and when more evidence is revealed.
[/quote]
The Galileo case is frequently misrepresented.

Good article on the case here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

An excerpt:[quote]Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his. [/quote]

Bottom line with regards to "the Church changing Her teachings," the Church never taught geocentrism as dogma.

It's a matter of astronomy and science (which is outside the realm of infallible Church teaching), not Faith and morals.

The Church's teachings on Faith and morals can never change, so those "Catholics" are wrong who try to use the Galileo case to suggest that the Church may eventually change Her moral teachings on, say, homosexuality, or contraception or abortion - or on a theological matter such as thedivinity of Christ.

Of the Church's teachings on Faith and morals could change, then the Church would be a mere fallible human institution, and there would be no point in considering oneself "Catholic."

[faithcecelia]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1311382632' post='2274089']
The Galileo case is frequently misrepresented.

Good article on the case here: [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp"]http://www.catholic....Controversy.asp[/url]

An excerpt:

Bottom line with regards to "the Church changing Her teachings," the Church never taught geocentrism as dogma.

It's a matter of astronomy and science (which is outside the realm of infallible Church teaching), not Faith and morals.

The Church's teachings on Faith and morals can never change, so those "Catholics" are wrong who try to use the Galileo case to suggest that the Church may eventually change Her moral teachings on, say, homosexuality, or contraception or abortion - or on a theological matter such as thedivinity of Christ.

Of the Church's teachings on Faith and morals could change, then the Church would be a mere fallible human institution, and there would be no point in considering oneself "Catholic."
[/quote]


Based on what has been written here, there is absolutely no reason at all, whatsoever that my first post should have been called heretical. I was not speaking about sexuality, contraception,female ordination, Christ's divinity etc. They are things I have never doubted.


But there ARE things where the church officials have changed aspects based on it being revealed through a person that they were wrong (as already shown) or through continued discernment such as meetings and prayer. For example the Eucharist itself has gone through changes almost from day one - being celebrated immediately after an agape meal, with the communicants own bread and wine from home being consecrated then consumed - standing up and on top of a full stomach and the remainder taken home to consume through the week could hardly be more different from the commonly called 'Traditional' way of fasting from the night before to recieve Christ in the form of a wafer whilst kneeling. If anything the way we are now is a step back towards true traditionalism as unless you live on the doorstep and get up at the last minute you can share a family bereafast before going to Mass.


Have the Popes and Bishops over the years decided to change the Church's teachings just for fun? Or just to cause chaos and division for the sake of it? No, I simply cannot, cannoy believe that more a moment. I believe the changes have been made because God has chosen to reveal his continuing plans for His Church.

Edited July 23, 2011 by faithcecelia

[Brother Adam]

Thank you for answering Socrates. Well faith cecelia?

[Jaime]

[quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1311385020' post='2274120']
Based on what has been written here, there is absolutely no reason at all, whatsoever that my first post should have been called heretical. I was not speaking about sexuality, contraception,female ordination, Christ's divinity etc. They are things I have never doubted.


But there ARE things where the church officials have changed aspects based on it being revealed through a person that they were wrong (as already shown) or through continued discernment such as meetings and prayer. For example the Eucharist itself has gone through changes almost from day one - being celebrated immediately after an agape meal, with the communicants own bread and wine from home being consecrated then consumed - standing up and on top of a full stomach and the remainder taken home to consume through the week could hardly be more different from the commonly called 'Traditional' way of fasting from the night before to recieve Christ in the form of a wafer whilst kneeling. If anything the way we are now is a step back towards true traditionalism as unless you live on the doorstep and get up at the last minute you can share a family bereafast before going to Mass.


Have the Popes and Bishops over the years decided to change the Church's teachings just for fun? Or just to cause chaos and division for the sake of it? No, I simply cannot, cannoy believe that more a moment. I believe the changes have been made because God has chosen to reveal his continuing plans for His Church.
[/quote]

No

Your first post was stating a heresy. Bro Adam was correct in catching it. I understand what you're trying to say, but it's incorrect. The Church will make adjustments in disciplines and practices. She does not make changes in the Truth. The Truth cannot change.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1311360773' post='2273922']
I can think of two causes: poor catechesis and misplaced anger/blame regarding the actions of some priests & bishops.
Sadly, many church volunteers are not qualified to teach to faith to others. A close friend of mine actually said to me that she has a hard time believing that God would send someone to hell just for being gay. I asked her where she got that idea. Her answer was her confirmation class. I was so angry that I wanted to throw up. I implored her to actually research the teachings of the Magisterium rather than trust her class, but she no longer even cares enough to bother.

Another thing to consider is that, for cradle Catholics more so than converts, Catholicism is as much of a culture as it is a religion. This happens in many older religions. I know many people who identify themselves as Catholic, fast during Lent, but only go to mass on Christmas and Easter. It's not very different than a Jewish friend of mine who eats his bacon cheeseburger without the bun during Passover (really - I did not make this up and it's not 3rd hand - I know this guy).
[/quote]

Oh, you're so right! There is little I hate more than poor catechesis. It seems that most Catholics don't realize the gravity of just 1 misrepresented Church teaching. It can turn people away from the Church, and therefore, away from God.

We need better catechesis!!!

[MissyP89]

Faith is takes surrender. We're proud, terrified human beings.

And let's face it, Jesus didn't come with a set of easy teachings. People abandoned Him every single day, and still do. The road to holiness is tough as nails. Or hard as hell, whichever.

That's why we have the Sacraments.

[MissScripture]

So, I was going to respond to this post:
[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1311346373' post='2273794']
It's just been something I've struggled understanding. I'm a convert to the faith, so the Church's authority and fullness of the faith was a [i]huge[/i] factor in my decision to become Catholic. And I guess to me it seems like a breech in logic or reason to stray from it while still remaining Catholic. (Not to say I think people who do should not identify as Catholics... that's not for me to judge... just that it seems like a non-sequitor to me.)

I spent this past year with a wonderful group of parishioners, and got to know them extremely well... I found that their "issues" with the Church usually stemmed from their experiences as a child or some sort of hurtful experience. At least with this particular group. Once I knew this, we were able to work on separating certain things (Adoration, the rosary, traditional Catholic practices) from being directly associated with their past experiences. Slightly different than having opposing views on faith and morals, but similar, I think.

I'm just trying to better understand, so I can be more effective in my work as a DRE. But it's difficult for me to understand where my parishioners are coming from sometimes.
[/quote]

And then I read this post:
[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1311360590' post='2273919']
TB, something else that may help you understand parishioners better - some cradle Catholics have a stronger "Catholic culture" than Catholic theology. By which I mean, they've heard a lot of this stuff all their lives, it may have been taught to them, they may be able to repeat it, but they may not have seriously [i]thought[/i] about it and incorporated it into their lives.

It's one of the dangers (that may be too strong a word - pitfalls? possible negative outcomes?) of sending children through Catholic schools K-12 - they wear the uniform, sit through the religion classes, make their First Communion and Confirmation because Mom & Dad say it's time to do that, and so forth. For that matter, Mom & Dad may be requiring the child to make First Communion and Confirmation just to make Grandma & Grandpa happy, or because that's what they did when they were that age. For these people, the religion is more of a culture than a commitment.

As an intelligent, thoughtful, serious, and educated person, you made a conscious examination of theology and an intellectual-emotional commitment to the tenets of the faith. For some Catholics, that's all just the background of their lives.

I guess it would be like growing up on some mountaintop with a spectacular view - if you've looked at it all you're life, you may get to the point where you're at all impressed by it any more. I think we discussed a similar topic a few months ago, about trying to keep prayer fresh, our relationship with God meaningful, that sort of thing.

Don't be too hard on parishioners who fall into this category, but you will need to find some way to make their religion fresh and meaningful for them.
[/quote]
And realized that I couldn't say it any better than that...

[kujo]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1311345801' post='2273786']
Wow.

I mean.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Except to say that I certainly didn't mean to come off like that. At all. And I'd hope that someone would [i]kindly[/i] point out that it may have sounded like that... rather than post something like this. Or kujo's response. Maybe it's just too early and I'm reading this in the wrong light. I'm not usually one to be offended or "hurt" by random folks on the internet. But this sort of response seems out of line to me.
[/quote]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1311346693' post='2273801']
Re-reading my original posts, I can see how it could've been read in such a light, especially considering recent events around phatmass. I should have been a little more clear about [i]why[/i] I was asking. I had just gotten home from Bible study and we had a discussion revolving around this issue and I was frustrated. I'm sorry as well.
[/quote]

Not my intention to be mean. It did just come off as a little...snooty. But if you say that's not your intention, then I take you at your word. And I'm sorry if my response was mean-spirited. Friends?

[Groo the Wanderer]

John 6.

The authority of the Church comes from Christ. The Church teaches what He taught. Hence when people reject the authority of the Church, they reject the authority of Christ. No different now than then....it's too hard for some to accept.



a pity.