Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[Perigrina]

Nope, I think I will take my 95% and keep the name "Roman Catholic," regardless of what you say. Whenever somebody asks me what I am, I will proudly declare that I am a Roman Catholic in communion with Rome. If you don't like that, you can go screw yourself.

 

You are not 95% Catholic.  When you reject a foundational belief, you do not have any of the beliefs that are built upon it, not in any coherent way.  Virtually every belief in Catholicism rests on its understanding of revelation and authority.  This is the first topic in the Catechism for this reason. 

 

If you said that you wanted to be my friend but that you rejected my description of myself in my phorum profile, how could we have a relationship? I would not be the person that you want "communion" with but rather some version of me that you had made up.  You are rejecting the Church's self-understanding, so whatever you are in communion with must come from your imagination.

[Nihil Obstat]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm


Apostolicity of mission is a guarantee of Apostolicity of doctrine. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haeres, IV, xxvi, n. 2) says: "Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the certain mark of truth according to the will of the Father; all others, however, are to be suspected, who separated themselves from the principal succession", etc. In explaining the concept of Apostolicity, then, special attention must be given to Apostolicity of mission, or Apostolic succession. Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession. The Apostles received it from Christ and gave it in turn to those legitimately appointed by them, and these again selected others to continue the work of the ministry. Any break in this succession destroys Apostolicity, because the break means the beginning of a new series which is not Apostolic. "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" (Romans 10:15). An authoritative mission to teach is absolutely necessary, a man-given mission is not authoritative. Hence any concept of Apostolicity that excludes authoritative union with the Apostolic mission robs the ministry of its Divine character. Apostolicity, or Apostolic succession, then, means that the mission conferred by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles must pass from then to their legitimate successors, in an unbroken line, until the end of the world. This notion of Apostolicity is evolved from the words of Christ Himself, the practice of the Apostles, and the teaching of the Fathers and theologians of the Church.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Nihil Obstat

[Selah]

I should really change the cat litter.

[Perigrina]

I should really change the cat litter.

 

 

How can you call it cat litter if it rejects cat litter teaching? 

[John Ryan]

You are not 95% Catholic.  When you reject a foundational belief, you do not have any of the beliefs that are built upon it, not in any coherent way.  Virtually every belief in Catholicism rests on its understanding of revelation and authority.  This is the first topic in the Catechism for this reason. 

 

If you said that you wanted to be my friend but that you rejected my description of myself in my phorum profile, how could we have a relationship? I would not be the person that you want "communion" with but rather some version of me that you had made up.  You are rejecting the Church's self-understanding, so whatever you are in communion with must come from your imagination.

 

I do not doubt the notion of apostolic succession in the Church. What I doubt is that it is infallible and absolute. I believe that the Church has passed down the Apostolic Tradition, but not that each and every statement is absolute. The Church has done a fine job of guarding the tradition and this duty has been crucial to the Christian faith.

 

I do not need an idol for my faith in God, Christ and the Church.

Edited June 23, 2014 by John Ryan

[Benedictus]

Depends on the person I suppose. I would imagine because they are baptised, confirmed, disciples of Jesus Christ! But I know people who attend mass for far less specific reasons than that. If you get overly freaky about who's in and out you end with with an empty church. Not everyone is at the same point and not everyone agrees with everything. That's life. The biggest mistake to make is to assume everyone sitting alongside you agrees with what's in your own head! You're going to get very disappointed if you do. Even the familar, like who and what is God, will lead to diverse views.

In a similar way some people are attracted to specific religious systems because they have psychological problems. I see it professionally also. They need the rules, boundaries and limits. Others simply like the emotional attachment, exploration and reassurance. For others it's not even about God.  The number of hardcore fundamentalists who have breakdowns after being extreme, often unhappy, doctrine enforcers and preachers is well noted. Many become atheists. Other people become more or less liberal/conservative in their religion over time.

In some cases people have fundamentalist traits/emotional reasons for seeking certainty, discipline, and a secure feeling of uniformity.  Any sense of uncertainity, disagreement, debate, dialogue, or rejection from other people makes them anxious, angry and frustrated. It's dangerous because people try to take on a regulating role they don't have. They badger, bully and attempt to exclude those who disagree with them. It can also inflate their ego, self  assurance and make them hard towards other people. In centuries past this would have played out as a religious witch hunt, war or attack.  But they shouldn't be acting out in an attempt to meet their own needs for security and reasurance.  If they can't raise issues in charity, with compassion and with the aim of keeping the people included and open to change then they should leave well alone. It just makes people angry and confused. If not people end up doing more damage when they don't have the expertise and remit to handle it -  it's better off left to God or someone with a higher pay grade who isn't attemting to force people into boxes and mind frames. There are many a good priest and SD's  who are better placed to handle such things.

[Selah]

How can you call it cat litter if it rejects cat litter teaching? 

 

One time in cat fancy they were showing different litters, and one of them had dried strawberries in it.

[Dr_Asik]

I haven't clearly made up my mind about this. If Infallibility is such a foundational teaching of the Church, how come it was only defined 140 years ago by the highly defensive, anathema-throwing 19th century Church, and to which Vatican II was basically a response?

 

I would like to better understand the reasoning behind considering the moral teachings of the Church as infallible. What makes the Church an infallible authority on moral doctrine? Matters of faith, I can understand, but matters of morality? When reading the gospels I don't see Jesus laying down precise moral directives but broad principles that invite interpretation depending on the circumstances.

 

I also take issue with some dogmas that seem far removed from any semblance of historicity. The Assumption of Mary, particularly, has no scriptural or historical basis whatsoever; it's pure theological speculation. I don't understand how the Church could confidently assert, 1900 years later, that this actually happened as a matter of fact. It seems to undermine its whole "authority".

 

I also disagree with the simplistic idea that agreement with Church doctrine has to be all or nothing, although I did believe that for quite some time. Our minds are not like computer memory on which you can simply copy-paste a set of data; everyone builds his own understanding of Catholic doctrine and everyone makes his best effort at synthetizing it as a coherent whole. The thing is, even the best theologians today could not perfectly achieve that, let alone the layman with little time to spare studying Church doctrine. Therefore, everyone necessarily ends up with some slightly different version of what it means to be a follower of Christ, even though there exists some highly technical, official, supposedly infallible texts written by some theologians in the Vatican. This idea of "100% adherence" is practically unfeasible and meaningless.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Nihil Obstat]

I haven't clearly made up my mind about this. If Infallibility is such a foundational teaching of the Church, how come it was only defined 140 years ago, in a period where the Church was behaving very defensively and to which Vatican II was basically a response?

 

 

You alluded to it yourself already. It was only defined then. It was believed in a latent form since the foundation of the Church, and it was held more and more definitively even since the earliest years of the Patristic age.

[Perigrina]

I do not doubt the notion of apostolic succession in the Church. What I doubt is that it is infallible and absolute. I believe that the Church has passed down the Apostolic Tradition, but not that each and every statement is absolute. The Church has done a fine job of guarding the tradition and this duty has been crucial to the Christian faith.

 

I do not need an idol for my faith in God, Christ and the Church.

 

The Church describes herself as having the ability and authority to teach infallibly.  Your understanding of Church is not based on the Church's understanding of herself.  Understanding the Church as she understands herself is not idolatry.  A much better case can be made that making up one's own understanding of Church is idolatry.  For the Church is the Body of Christ.  Therefore to imagine a false Church is to make a false Christ.

[Fidei Defensor]

Cognitive dissonance is nice way to deal with some things.

[Nihil Obstat]

I also take issue with some dogmas that seem far removed from any semblance of historicity. The Assumption of Mary, particularly, has no scriptural or historical basis whatsoever; it's pure theological speculation. I don't understand how the Church could confidently assert, 1900 years later, that this actually happened as a matter of fact. It seems to undermine its whole "authority".

Not speculation. Tradition.

Tradition is as authoritative as scripture.

[Selah]

Catholics can believe in the Dormition.

[Perigrina]

Depends on the person I suppose. I would imagine because they are baptised, confirmed, disciples of Jesus Christ! But I know people who attend mass for far less specific reasons than that. If you get overly freaky about who's in and out you end with with an empty church. Not everyone is at the same point and not everyone agrees with everything. That's life. The biggest mistake to make is to assume everyone sitting alongside you agrees with what's in your own head! You're going to get very disappointed if you do. Even the familar, like who and what is God, will lead to diverse views.

 

I would have found it more helpful if you had talked about why you call yourself a Catholic while rejecting Church teaching rather than speculating about what motivates other people.  

 

Not agreeing with Church teaching is not "life".  It is often heresy.  That is about as far away from life as one can get.

[Dr_Asik]

Not speculation. Tradition.

Tradition is as authoritative as scripture.

When you say "Tradition" you refer to the fact that this belief was held by the Church over most of its history. When I say "speculation" I refer to the fact that this belief originated from theological speculation, i.e. no one has actually testified seeing the Mother of Jesus rise to Heaven, and no scriptural text refers to such an event either. So, it may be "Tradition", but that doesn't change the origin of the belief; it's still pure speculation. That doesn't warrant it becoming dogma. A lot of pious opinions have been held since the beginning of Christianity (such that some angels have names like Gabriel etc.), most will never become dogma.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Dr_Asik