Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[Lilllabettt]

I have very little patience for people who set their hearts against the teachings of the faith and go on claiming to the world that they are Catholic. Very little. There are exceptions for sure but I think it mostly springs from either mendacity, cowardice or laziness.

 

The prostitute who admits to herself and the world that how she lives is wrong may indeed be a faithful Catholic. And Jesus will save her, even if He must wait until the last moment. She may die in the gutter but she will get to heaven faster than any of you. The nun who is chaste and says in her heart "ah but the faith, its wrong about sex"  --- well God will do as He pleases but if He admits her she will be much lower in glory than that faithful Catholic who died as a prostitute in the gutter.

 

Because Catholicism is not a system of laws to be followed, is it. It is a FAITH. It is a system of belief, it is a matter of the heart. Break all 10 commandments 100 times a day, you may still be a faithful Catholic. Because guess what, YOU are the person Jesus came to save.

 

Most people are like the nun - they don't have the guts or the humility to take the identity of sinner within the Church. So they either keep their integrity - and leave. Or they think what remains is appealing enough or convenient enough that they still want to claim their religion even if their membership is a sham. So they pay lipservice. 

 

A woman who says "I think divorce is okay, and I know I must somehow be in the wrong on that" - she may be a faithful Catholic. She may commit adultery every day of her life with her 2nd husband. But she is a believer. if her belief falters she prays for God to help her unbelief. How hard that is! To live with yourself as someone who is in the wrong. To pray to God to keep you believing that you are in the wrong! That is why these people become saints, despite the way they live. Because their glory is in their struggle.

 

Then you have a woman who says "I think divorce is okay." and she knows this is against the faith, but she is comfortable and at peace with it and tells herself in her heart that she is in the right. And she goes on calling herself a Catholic, because she is a liar, or she is too much a coward to leave, or it would be too inconvenient. She may never be divorced, but she is not a faithful Catholic. And when she claims she is, she insults the blood sweat and tears of honest sinful Catholics everywhere.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[John Ryan]

If they reject even one dogma they are outside of the fold. We have to take unity very seriously, even the Apostle of love, John the Evangelist, warned to not associate with those who corrupt the doctrine of Christ. 

 

Now I have to take an aside here and admit my own failings. I have been too harsh on this forum, although I try to be facetious about things. I understand certain things may be difficult to understand, and I apologize to anyone if I have treated them harshly over it. I think the concern is that there is a difference between struggling but trying to understanding and simply rejecting. For years I struggled to understand how the Pope can be infallible and we are still in this mess. How the Catholic Church could be the true Church and yet it is literally decaying before our very eyes. We all struggle to understand sometimes, yet the solution is not to reject. If we reject them to willing step outside the fold. You could literally mimic Catholic behavior and believe every single doctrine, yet if you reject one dogma knowingly and willingly, then you are outside of the fold. What's worse, if such a person promotes their rejection, and makes other doubt, then it is like of that one person our Lord spoke about when he said it were better he had never been born.

 

Somehow I doubt this would be the response the Holy Father would give.

 

 

I have very little patience for people who set their hearts against the teachings of the faith and go on claiming to the world that they are Catholic. Very little. There are exceptions for sure but I think it mostly springs from either mendacity, cowardice or laziness.

 

The prostitute who admits to herself and the world that how she lives is wrong may indeed be a faithful Catholic. And Jesus will save her, even if He must wait until the last moment. She may die in the gutter but she will get to heaven faster than any of you. The nun who is chaste and says in her heart "ah but the faith, its wrong about sex"  --- well God will do as He pleases but if He admits her she will be much lower in glory than that faithful Catholic who died as a prostitute in the gutter.

 

Because Catholicism is not a system of laws to be followed, is it. It is a FAITH. It is a system of belief, it is a matter of the heart. Break all 10 commandments 100 times a day, you may still be a faithful Catholic. Because guess what, YOU are the person Jesus came to save.

 

Most people are like the nun - they don't have the guts or the humility to take the identity of sinner within the Church. So they either keep their integrity - and leave. Or they think what remains is appealing enough or convenient enough that they still want to claim their religion even if their membership is a sham. So they pay lipservice. 

 

A woman who says "I think divorce is okay, and I know I must somehow be in the wrong on that" - she may be a faithful Catholic. She may commit adultery every day of her life with her 2nd husband. But she is a believer. if her belief falters she prays for God to help her unbelief. How hard that is! To live with yourself as someone who is in the wrong. To pray to God to keep you believing that you are in the wrong! That is why these people become saints, despite the way they live. Because their glory is in their struggle.

 

Then you have a woman who says "I think divorce is okay." and she knows this is against the faith, but she is comfortable and at peace with it and tells herself in her heart that she is in the right. And she goes on calling herself a Catholic, because she is a liar, or she is too much a coward to leave, or it would be too inconvenient. She may never be divorced, but she is not a faithful Catholic. And when she claims she is, she insults the blood sweat and tears of honest sinful Catholics everywhere.

 

This sounds too much like sola fide for my Catholic sensibilities. How do you reconcile this with the Matthew 25 discourse about the sheep and the goats? 

Edited June 24, 2014 by John Ryan

[chrysostom]

Interesting story I heard an older priest tell who had administered a lot of last rites in hospitals in his lifetime.

 

When he asked the Catholics on their deathbeds if they knew that the contraception they had used was wrong, they always said yes.

 

Priests are such a comfort.  From a sudden and unprovided death, spare us, O Lord!

[mortify ii]

Of course if there's one thing you can't expect to get Scriptural basis for, it's the Canon; that doesn't exonerate other doctrines from this requirement. Note that again, Munificentissicimus Deus does claim that the Assumption of Mary is founded on Scripture; it just doesn't substantiate that claim.

 

 

It is founded in scripture but you are looking for a historic narrative not possible for obvious reasons. The only historic books in the NT are the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles and neither would contain the assumption of Mary as likely the Mother of God was still alive during their composition. Therefore, the only references we will find will be along the lines of prophecy, typology, and esoteric or mystical interpretations, coupled with theological deductions. If Mary is the New Eve born of an immaculate conception, it implies she would have been spared corruption and her body would have been assumed into heaven as opposed to returning to the earth as a consequence of original sin. Of course at the resurrection the all just with their glorified bodies will also be assumed into heaven as Mary was. The typological and mystical references are found in the psalms and Revelation, here are the two main ones:

 

"Arise, O Lord, to Your resting place,
You and the ark of Your strength."

Psalm 132:8

 

"Then the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple."

Revelation 19:19
 

Immediately following the above verse revelation there is a clear description of the Mother of God in heaven. The "ark" is an obvious reference to our Holy Mother's body, as it was that which held our Lord for nine months. So the references are there, and the Fathers and and doctors of our religion have understood them as such. I don't have much difficulty accept these proofs, but then again I consider myself more of a mystic than an academic. 

[mortify ii]

Somehow I doubt this would be the response the Holy Father would give.

 

Well my friend, in the end we shall find out who was right

[Lilllabettt]

Somehow I doubt this would be the response the Holy Father would give.

 

 

This sounds too much like sola fide for my Catholic sensibilities. How do you reconcile this with the Matthew 25 discourse about the sheep and the goats? 

 

 

Believe it or not, prostitutes can feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for the sick -- and many of them do these things every day.  An unbeliever can do these things as well and God smiles on that.  I believe God is closer to an unbeliever who is honest and forthright with themselves and the world than all the people who lip-sync "i believe in the holy catholic church" on Sunday. 

[John Ryan]

Believe it or not, prostitutes can feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for the sick -- and many of them do these things every day.  An unbeliever can do these things as well and God smiles on that.  I believe God is closer to an unbeliever who is honest and forthright with themselves and the world than all the people who lip-sync "i believe in the holy catholic church" on Sunday. 

 

You are shifting the point of contention. You assertion was that it doesn't matter if you do what is evil so long as you acknowledge that it is evil while you are doing it. That seemed to me to be the very antithesis of mortal sin in Catholic theology. The way I have understood it, is that a sin can only truly be mortal if you know that what you do is wrong. So, for example, you could say I do not truly know that contraceptives are immoral. But the person who fully knows the Magisterium to be absolute and still uses contraceptives, s/he is in greater danger of mortal sin.

 

Unless, I misread what you wrote. I am terribly sleepy. 

[Lilllabettt]

You are shifting the point of contention. You assertion was that it doesn't matter if you do what is evil so long as you acknowledge that it is evil while you are doing it. 

 

 

No. I  said someone claims a religion, goes against that religion and admits their failure is closer to heaven than someone who does the same but pretends to themselves and the world that what they've done is not against their religion or that its not a failure at all. Catholic Muslim Jew Buddhist whatever. It applies. 

 

If you want to claim a religion as your own you either embrace, or commit to struggling to accept, all that religion insists is true. If the time comes you don't want to do that anymore then you have the guts to call your independence by its name. That's courage and integrity.  

[Perigrina]

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.

 

 

I asked about people who take the intellectually inconsistent and incoherent position of calling themselves Catholic while rejecting fundamental Catholic doctrines.  If you had replied with information with emotional problems associated with heterodoxy, that would have been relevant (although not the sort of answer I was looking for). Responding with information about emotional problems associated with orthodoxy was irrelevant and defensive.  It was not an answer to my question.  It was "Oh yeah, well you orthodox people have problems too" dressed up in psychology language.  I am not telling you what to say or what not to say.  I am telling you what was wrong with your post.

 

It is normal to seek consistency.  I do not need any explanations about why anybody might have problems when encountering people with inconsistent positions.

 

You are right.  I do not have to agree with you.  But you have to agree with the Church.  You endanger your soul by doing otherwise.

[Perigrina]

Cardinals aren't considered to be a part of the Curia? And while we are on the subject, the Magisterium is more of an idea than a specific organization within the Church, though right? I just want to make sure I have my terminology. 

 

Curia refers to governance.  This is what the Vatican website says: 

 

In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/

 

It includes the Secretariat of State, and various councils, commissions, committees, etc.  It does include the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, so it is not completely removed from doctrinal matters.  Cardinals are often (usually, I think) members of the departments of the Curia.

 

Magisterium refers to the teaching authority of the Church, rather any particular organizations.  There are a few ways it can be exercised.  This is what the CCC says:

 

2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."⁷⁶ Theordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.⁷⁷

2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.⁷⁸

 

^{http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a3.htm}

[Perigrina]

You are shifting the point of contention. You assertion was that it doesn't matter if you do what is evil so long as you acknowledge that it is evil while you are doing it. That seemed to me to be the very antithesis of mortal sin in Catholic theology. The way I have understood it, is that a sin can only truly be mortal if you know that what you do is wrong. So, for example, you could say I do not truly know that contraceptives are immoral. But the person who fully knows the Magisterium to be absolute and still uses contraceptives, s/he is in greater danger of mortal sin.

 

Unless, I misread what you wrote. I am terribly sleepy. 

 

She is talking about people like the tax collector in the parable in Luke 18:

 

13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

[Benedictus]

I asked about people who take the intellectually inconsistent and incoherent position of calling themselves Catholic while rejecting fundamental Catholic doctrines.  If you had replied with information with emotional problems associated with heterodoxy, that would have been relevant (although not the sort of answer I was looking for). Responding with information about emotional problems associated with orthodoxy was irrelevant and defensive.  It was not an answer to my question.  It was "Oh yeah, well you orthodox people have problems too" dressed up in psychology language.  I am not telling you what to say or what not to say.  I am telling you what was wrong with your post.

Well people reply in ways they see fit. Any reply on a thread isn't necessarily a direct answer to the thread starter, and it's there for everyone's benefit. As the replies get longer the chances are increased that ideas and points will be raised in connection with what others have said. People may want to think through and clarify their own responses to various points. The OP can take, or not, what they like from it. But I don't necessarily simply reply for what they may, or may not, want as the thread goes on.

In terms of your analysis of my posts, that's your interpretation. As I said it's not about you or any response you think I had. I've said that more than once. I don't even accept your framing that I'd think orthodox people are such and such. That would presume I think other people are something I'm not in that way. I don't tend to operate from that place. Maybe that's how you processed what I said, that's as it is. I strongly don't agree with you on some points, as you obviously know, but that's about it.

In terms of heterodoxy -  the reasons for remaining are more diverse: different needs/narrative, identity, culture, emotional connection, family, friends, sacred space, familarity etc.This is tied up with emotions, good and bad, on various levels.  Different aspects are important to different people;

we don't all think and behave the same according to the same situation or issue. In a religious environment people can't really be that distructive unless they use the tools there to exert a sense of power or motivation. For that reason, within this context, it is those who use doctrine as their tool who will be distructive. But that doesn't mean the average 'orthodox' Catholic is distructive. There is a difference. It's a good practice to assume good intent unless you're told otherwise. Maybe it would be charitable to move onto the next post if it doesn't meet your needs. Saves time and drama.

 

It is normal to seek consistency.  I do not need any explanations about why anybody might have problems when encountering people with inconsistent positions.

 

You are right.  I do not have to agree with you.  But you have to agree with the Church.  You endanger your soul by doing otherwise.

On the first point -  that's your opinion. Move on if you don't find it useful, that would be my view. There's nothing else you can do aside from posting in reply to posts you don't find useful.That makes little sense.

On the second point - thanks for the advice. But I'm an adult and I can work it out with my own priest/SD, although on this point many priests/SD's agree with varying points of what I'm saying. I guess you'd see them as wrong etc etc, I get it. But it is what it is. They get through the day with Gods grace.

It doesn't make sense to me to say I have to agree with anything, even the church. This is because I can be advised to reflect and be open on its views. But I don't know anyone who can simply change a deeply thought through belief and view on a whim. I just don't see myself as that fickle or impressionable. But if someone else could, good for them.

[KnightofChrist]

In the past when Satan led souls away from the true faith, they would go form their own, false, church. Today it seems Satan has learned a more effective way of devouring souls. Simply crown as many false pontiffs as possible and let them destroy the Church from the inside out.

[Perigrina]

In terms of heterodoxy -  the reasons for remaining are more diverse: different needs/narrative, identity, culture, emotional connection, family, friends, sacred space, familarity etc.This is tied up with emotions, good and bad, on various levels.  Different aspects are important to different people;

we don't all think and behave the same according to the same situation or issue. In a religious environment people can't really be that distructive unless they use the tools there to exert a sense of power or motivation. For that reason, within this context, it is those who use doctrine as their tool who will be distructive. But that doesn't mean the average 'orthodox' Catholic is distructive. There is a difference. It's a good practice to assume good intent unless you're told otherwise. Maybe it would be charitable to move onto the next post if it doesn't meet your needs. Saves time and drama.

 

On the first point -  that's your opinion. Move on if you don't find it useful, that would be my view. There's nothing else you can do aside from posting in reply to posts you don't find useful.That makes little sense.

On the second point - thanks for the advice. But I'm an adult and I can work it out with my own priest/SD, although on this point many priests/SD's agree with varying points of what I'm saying. I guess you'd see them as wrong etc etc, I get it. But it is what it is. They get through the day with Gods grace.

It doesn't make sense to me to say I have to agree with anything, even the church. This is because I can be advised to reflect and be open on its views. But I don't know anyone who can simply change a deeply thought through belief and view on a whim. I just don't see myself as that fickle or impressionable. But if someone else could, good for them.

 

 

I doubt that genuine orthodoxy can be destructive but I have seen people who falsely claim that their personal opinions are Church teaching and try to impose them on others.  There is no question that this pseodo-orthodoxy is destructive.

 

I suppose there are situations in which orthodox positions are presented in pastorally insensitive or uncharitable ways.  Perhaps this is what you mean by destructive.

 

Heterodoxy, however, is far more destructive than orthodoxy could ever be.  This is why the Church has always taken such a strong stand against it.

 

It is very sad that you have found support for your heterdoxy from priests and SDs.  People who lead those under their charge astray face a terrible judgment.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Perigrina

[Credo in Deum]

In the past when Satan led souls away from the true faith, they would go form their own, false, church. Today it seems Satan has learned a more effective way of devouring souls. Simply crown as many false pontiffs as possible and let them destroy the Church from the inside out.

 

Actually he's been doing this since the Church was founded.  Remember Christ saying to Peter "Get behind me Satan" or Judas?