Dissent In The Church

[Mateo el Feo]

PPS--Here's a place (hot-link) for you to introduce yourself to the gang (not just those reading this thread!) :)

Edited February 25, 2004 by Mateo el Feo

[Laudate_Dominum]

Maybe this example will help:

No orthodox Catholic would deny that Abraham, Moses or David are in heaven (hence, are 'saved'). They were saved by the merits of Christ. It is something like the preemptive applications of the graces of Calvary in Our Lady's Immaculate Conception. And since these OT saints are saved and are in Heaven they are part of Christ's Body and are in the Catholic Church. So this is an example of people who are saved by Christ and members of His Church now that they are dead when in their earthly life they could not possibly have been baptized or in the institutional Church.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I assume that you are a protestant who believes that the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God. Is this correct?.....Again, how do you look at Baptism and the Eucharist? According to your beliefs (or those of your church), are they necessary for salvation? The Holy Bible says yes; but I suspect that you've got your own "buts" in your belief system.

I believe they are necessary unless you don't know to know any better. I realize this is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. But the Catholic Church teaches that it is infallible and this thread is studying that claim in the context of history. Personally I would not be kosher with something infallible doing what I am describing in this thread. Adding "but's" and "and's". But the reason I started this thread is because I was asking if a Catholic could not follow a particular doctrine because she thought it was bound to have an and or but added someday, or at least should be that way in truth. I was just curious to see what you all would say and most say that you should do what your superiors say no matter what.

I realize that picking and choosing allows for people doing whatever they want. But that is the way the Catholic system of ands and buts has forced it to be. Which is one reason philosophically (not counting other evidence) I do as I see right.

I think the Bible is inspired. The bible contains truth, but the bible isn't truth. I don't claim to say it's infallible. And even if it was, I am still myself fallible so it wouldn't matter. But again it is inspired, and I am a rational person.

As of now, no church governs me other than the church of myself. There are people with similar beliefs as me.. many of those non-denominaltionals who aren't fundamentalists. But I include people into my church who don't realize the truth as I see it just like Catholics include others too. Everyone is a member of my church.

My church is based on reason. My reason may be wrong but I'm okay with that. The only real truth that matters is God's love and with this as a premise, I don't think it matters that I may be wrong if I hold to my convictions when I have listened to all other arguments whole heartedly.

Just like you have studied the evidence and have decided that to not be Catholic is not following the truth. How could I stay true to God when I have studied the evidence and feel as if I am going against the truth?

Edited February 25, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[phatcatholic]

I believe they are necessary unless you don't know to know any better.

so, u believe in infant baptism and the Real Presence Presence of Jesus' Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist--and that receiving both is integral to salvation? (i just want to see if we're on the same page here)

I realize this is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. But the Catholic Church teaches that it is infallible and this thread is studying that claim in the context of history. Personally I would not be kosher with something infallible doing what I am describing in this thread.  Adding "but's" and "and's".

i don't see how your argument proves what you are hoping to does. the fundamental meaning is the same, now and forever: if you are outside the Church, you have no salvation. our understanding of a doctrine is allowed to develop as long as the fundamental meaning of it does not change. did you read the last article i provided for you on development of doctrine? i will offer it to you again. please, go here.

But the reason I started this thread is because I was asking if a Catholic could not follow a particular doctrine because she thought it was bound to have an and or but added someday, or at least should be that way in truth.

a catholic can, should, and will always remain confident in the doctrines of the Church b/c they never change in their fundamental nature. all the "ands" and "buts" do is clarify a doctrine. they do not change it. actually, such clarification is blessing, not a hindrance or a cause to feel insecure about the doctrines of the Church. Through clarifiation comes greater understanding of the Church and her teachings. so, VII's statements on "outside the Church, no salvation" do nothing to shake the faith that i have always had in the Church.

I was just curious to see what you all would say and most say that you should do what your superiors say no matter what.

this is not necessarily true. if a bishop proposes a teaching that is contrary to orthodox catholicism, then we are obligated by the demands of objective Truth to reject his teaching on that matter, even though this man is in a position of authority. for the most part, such instances are rare, although they do occur. at any rate, catholic orthodoxy is not a game of "simon says" where we just blindly go wherever the nearest leader takes us. a bishop is infallible to the degree w/ which he is in communion w/ the Pope and w/ traditional Catholic understanding.

I realize that picking and choosing allows for people doing whatever they want. But that is the way the Catholic system of ands and buts has forced it to be. Which is one reason philosophically (not counting other evidence) I do as I see right.

i am honestly not sure what more must be said before you see that this is not true. "ands" and "buts" do not have the effect that you perceive them to have. please, dairygirl, do some more research on this topic before formulate your opinion on this matter. in my entry in the reference section on Salvation, i devoted a whole section on articles that explain this "outside the Church no salvation" controversy. please, read them carefully. also, dave armstrong devotes a section of his website on Development of Doctrine that will also be very helpful to you. if anyone has responded to every protestant objection on the matter, it is dave armstrong. i believe you will gain much understanding from these links if u will take the time to read them.

i must go to mass now. so i will respond to the rest of ur post when i return.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[IcePrincessKRS]

this is not necessarily true. if a bishop proposes a teaching that is contrary to orthodox catholicism, then we are obligated by the demands of objective Truth to reject his teaching on that matter, even though this man is in a position of authority. for the most part, such instances are rare, although they do occur. at any rate, catholic orthodoxy is not a game of "simon says" where we just blindly go wherever the nearest leader takes us. a bishop is infallible to the degree w/ which he is in communion w/ the Pope and w/ traditional Catholic understanding.

That was an excellent post PhatCatholic. I hope Bro. Adam reads this, because I was talking with him on AIM the other day and this paragraph answers a question he asked me really well.

[phatcatholic]

dairygirl,

now, on to the rest of ur post.

I think the Bible is inspired. The bible contains truth, but the bible isn't truth.

?!?! the bible is inspired, but it isn't truth? the bible contains truth, but it isn't truth? further explanation is needed here, because you appear to contradict yourself. also, if the bible contains truth, but it is not truth, does that mean it is interspersed w/ error and fallacy as well? if so, how do u decide what is error and what is truth?

I don't claim to say it's infallible. And even if it was, I am still myself fallible so it wouldn't matter. But again it is inspired, and I am a rational person.

it doesn't matter that you are a fallible person attempting to interpret an infallible book?!?! really? let me tell you why it does matter. it matters b/c if we do not have an infallible interpreter, then we are very likely--b/c of our fallen nature--to MISinterpret scripture, to follow a road to salvation that is the incorrect one, to believe things about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that are not true, to pave a road to hell w/ good intentions!

our unity w/ God in heaven depends on an infallible interpretation of Scripture. yes, Scripture is neither a strategy guide nor a theology book, but it is an immensely helpful aid in understanding our Lord and what He has intended for us. w/o an infallible interpreter, we are left to our own naturally faulty presumptions. is that not just a little unsettling to you?

As of now, no church governs me other than the church of myself.  There are people with similar beliefs as me.. many of those non-denominaltionals who aren't fundamentalists. But I include people into my church who don't realize the truth as I see it just like Catholics include others too. Everyone is a member of my church.

wow, u continue to amaze me the more i read! you, the beforementioned fallible interpreter of scripture, now the head of the church according to you. are you not the same person who in earlier posts was defending OBJECTIVE truth? how can truth be objective if it is however YOU want it to be? don't you see, as long as fallibility is your foundation, SUBJECTIVE truth is your guide. personally, i would rather follow the inspired word of God.

My church is based on reason. My reason may be wrong but I'm okay with that. The only real truth that matters is God's love and with this as a premise, I don't think it matters that I may be wrong if I hold to my convictions when I have listened to all other arguments whole heartedly.

so, its ok to hold on to faulty convictions? you say so yourself:

--"I don't think it matters that I may be wrong if I hold to my convictions..."

you realize that if you hold on to wrong convictions, you are living in error--right? yet you seem to be ok w/ this, which is altogether perplexing.

Just like you have studied the evidence and have decided that to not be Catholic is not following the truth.    How could I stay true to God when I have studied the evidence and feel as if I am going against the truth?

well, it seems as though you have surrendered any claim to "truth" w/ your dependence upon a fallible interpretation of a book that isn't even truth. under this scenario, how could u possible possess truth? i promise i'm not judging you. what i'm saying seems to be the logical deduction from what you have presented here:

--fallible interpretation + "church of you" + subjective truth + fallible book = FALLACY

also, ur posts here reveal to me that maybe you haven't researched catholicism as thoroughly as you may need to. also, please not that i am not calling you ignorant or uncapapble. there are many things that i have yet to learn as well. so, i suggest to myself that i read more about this Catholic Church. i extend the same suggestion to you.

Good Luck and May God Bless You,

phatcatholic

[megamattman1]

....

Edited February 27, 2004 by megamattman1

[dairygirl4u2c]

PhatCatholic,

I think you've made some serious logic errors yourself.. or at least didn't really condsider what I was saying.

?!?! the bible contains truth, but it isn't truth? further explanation is needed here, because you appear to contradict yourself

You are illogical to say that something can't contain truth, yet not be truth. Even from the Catholic church has even taught that many religions contain some truth to them, but aren't truth.

This first quote in light of the second quote proves that you hadn't thought through what I said. Because this second quote answers you're first.

also, if the bible contains truth, but it is not truth, does that mean it is interspersed w/ error and fallacy as well? if so, how do u decide what is error and what is truth?

I believe that the bible is interspersed with error and fallacy. It could be infallible, but I don't think so. And like I said, it doesn't matter if it was because I am fallible. And I am okay with that. I don't just do whatever, just because a church tells me to and do it out of faith. I use reason! You seem to belittle God given human reason.

If we don't understand something, we are suppose to just go ahead and do it bc a church tells us to? So at the end of the day, you must just go with what the Church teaches regardless of what you might think personally, just for the sake of knowing that you have the "Truth"? ig Contraception is wrong at all times, just because? That's almost idolatrous if you're going against reason just so you don't have have the back bone to think for yourself.

But it does take back bone to be religious. I was for a long time. I just say that because I'd always feign away from thinking for myself, not saying you do.

are you not the same person who in earlier posts was defending OBJECTIVE truth?

I don't remember defending it. But yes objective truth exists. I just don't claim to know it all but think I have much based on reason.

ur posts here reveal to me that maybe you haven't researched catholicism as thoroughly as you may need to

Just to note I have studied it. I was born a Catholic and was raised one and even defended it for many years with much rigor until I couldn't find answers to the less superficial arguments that I'd always win. development of doctrine and the basis of church authority if you wanna know. I've studied them much and am still studying. All I ever get is smoke and mirrors and long websites that don't answer my questions. If you want to tackle some of these issues by all means I want you to. But don't give me long websites that don't answer my question just because you don't have the answer yourself to say in plain simple words. And don't say you'll get back with me and never do. I still read and research, but these are the reasons that I left the Church officially.

Edited February 27, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also phatcatholic. I'd like you to email me if you're willing to be ready to have your faith shaken.

dairygirl4u2c@yahoo.com

Al... the dude that's usually known as Al. If you're reading this. I'd like you to email me too since you don't put words in my mouth and actually consider what I say. (but never seem to get back with me when you say you will )

:)

[littleflower+JMJ]

also phatcatholic. I'd like you to email me if you're willing to be ready to have your faith shaken.

 

um why have one's "faith" shaken dairygirl? and in what way?

are you here because like justcatholic.com you want to "save" us?

im sorry but after that line, im questioning your motives.

your logic will only be perfect to you because that is how you chose to see it.

as for email, i caution it.

God bless you dairygirl and you are in my prayers...

[Aloysius]

the St. Thomas Aquinas stuff was part of what i was thinking... and yeah, i'm lazy that's why i'm failing school. hehe, yeah, i intended to get back to u with quotes but i'm slothful and didn't. i'm sorry though, i truly intended to get somethin for you. if i email you i'll get you as much as i have time to find.

that makes me sad that you want to "shake ppls faith" though, why would you want to do that?

anyway, basis of Church authority and developement of doctrine= "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when He comes, the Spirit of Truth, He will lead you into all truth" ~Jesus Christ speaking to His Apostles 2000 years ago. ;)

[littleflower+JMJ]

that makes me sad that you want to "shake ppls faith" though, why would you want to do that? 

i think justforcatholics has something to do with it.

since she seem to think it was correct. :shame: and thats a shame.

[IcePrincessKRS]

I would advise you all to use EXTREME caution if you do decide to e-mail DairyG. She has openly said she wants you to e-mail her so she can "shake your faith." While I don't think its necessary to edit her post (we all have those little "e-mail" buttons, you could have e-mailed her at any time if you so wished), I do think its best to be careful, and try and keep your debates here in the public eye.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I only will shake your faith because I am myself looking for answers. I can never find the answers, and no one here gives them to me. They give me long websites that don't answer and don't respond to me after we finally get to the point.

I just want someone to focus for once. Perhaps it is me who will have my faith shaken. My goal isn't to shake faiths, per se. It's to get to the points of these posts more efficiently.

[littleflower+JMJ]

I only will shake your faith because I am myself looking for answers. I can never find the answers, and no one here gives them to me. They give me long websites that don't answer and don't respond to me after we finally get to the point.

I just want someone to focus for once.  Perhaps it is me who will have my faith shaken. My goal isn't to shake faiths, per se. It's to get to the points of these posts more efficiently.

you've come to the right place if you are looking for answers but if you also were looking you would also take the time to read those links and any info we give you, for some reason, i dont think thats happening. you chose to understand that we "dont understand" and are never consistant.

if your here to get answers then i have yet to see that. you do not even consider what we say and continue to post misconceptions......trying to lead us by your misunderstandings of the faith.

you made numerous threads but have failed to respond to them on several occasions, you skipp posts that dont agree with your saying and never fully supporting your logic nor explaining it, posted a website to "save" us catholics and agreeing with it, fail to even acknowledege when your are wrong, and though you claim to know the faith, you do not understand it because its obvious you dont by what you post.

so forgive me if im wrong. im just going by what i see. we all welcome you here at phatmass, we welcome you with Truth.

i urge you to listen and read what we say because it is here where you will get the correct answers on our faith and on Truth, not justforcathlics.

im praying for you dairygirl that you may have the courage get those answers and when you find them to be also couragous enough to not only find them but accept them.

May God continue to bless you on your journey for truth and answers and may the Holy Spirit guide us all.

flowery

+JMJ