Dissent In The Church

[IcePrincessKRS]

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.

Looking for answers does not shake our faith. We have people come here regularly who are looking for answers, or who are here simply to attack our faith. It doesn't work. Your comment seems to say "e-mail me so I can lure you away." I'm sorry if you don't like that I said that, but its how your statement came across to me and to several others. If you don't want to try and deliberately shake our faith then don't say "email me if you're willing to be ready to have your faith shaken."

Maybe you should read those long websites. They hold a wealth of information. You may think its a waste of time but many people find them extremely useful. Sometimes to try and sum up an entire website of knowledge just doesn't fit the bill when you need answers. Some of us give answers to your questions in our own words, and others refer you to theologians who can answer your questions much better than we are able. If you choose to reject what is offered thats your problem.

[dairygirl4u2c]

If you don't want to try and deliberately shake our faith then don't say "email me if you're willing to be ready to have your faith shaken."

All I meant was be warned because emailing me will probably shake your faith (even if you won't admit it) if you're like most Catholics. See, peeps just read into what I was saying too much. I can't blame them, I didn't make myself clear.

Maybe you should read those long websites. They hold a wealth of information. You may think its a waste of time but many people find them extremely useful.

My point is that I do read them, and they don't answer my question. I presume (since I did it much myself as a Catholic until I became honet with myself) that they think the site does answer the question, not necessariy because it does, but because it's so long and scholarly.

Also I do ask more questions... but no one answers them. Very frustrating.

So anyway.. with all that in mind.. everyone feel free to email me!

Edited February 27, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[IcePrincessKRS]

Exactly what questions do you want answered? I've found many answers in long websites and articles for a number of people. Often, because I know people don't like reading long things like that (which you've made pretty clear, I think ) I just cut and paste the main point and expound upon that a little bit. Present your questions clearly and maybe you'll get some good answers. I have had difficulty trying to figure out what you're trying to find out in a few of your posts. (I think you must just be thinking too fast and your fingers aren't moving as quickly as your thoughts or something, or perhaps I'm just not good at sorting out comments to find the real beef of the question....)

[phatcatholic]

dairygirl,

i would like to respond to your recent remarks about my post.

PhatCatholic,

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

I stand corrected. as for as logic goes, you are correct in stating that something can contain truth w/o being truth in its essence or nature. i think my initial puzzlement w/ this statement has to do w/ the implications this logic has regarding the Bible. i go on in my post to question how you, as a fallible interpreter of a fallible book, could know which elements of the Bible are of truth and which are of fallacy. you give the following replies, neither of which directly or adequately address this difficulty:

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....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.

so, i ask you again, which teachings of the Bible make up truth, and which parts make up error? where do u draw the line? how do u draw the line? maybe you use that beloved gift of reason. afterall....

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.

but, did i not explain in my last post that catholic orthodoxy is not a game of "Simon Says"? catholic DON'T "just do whatever, just because a church tells me to." first off, as i said already, catholic don't blindly follow church authority if those in authority are obviously mistaken as to what is TRUE catholic belief. secondly, any educated catholic--and especially those who have converted to the faith--will be quick to inform you that they consent to the authority of the Church b/c they have GOOD REASON to do so. they have studied both sides of the argument, they have weighed every confounding variable, they have gathered the evidence and they see such consent as the ONLY logical and necessary conclusion.

when are you going to quit looking at us as if we are dumb sheep "swayed to and fro by every wind of doctrine"??

now, if i could speak further on the role of reason. how anyone could say that catholics belittle reason is beyond me. have you ever read anything from the early church Fathers? the greatest proponents of reason to EVER walk this Earth are catholic. read one paragraph from the Summa Theologica and then tell me that catholics have no use for reason.

that said, u must realize that reason, no matter how trained and defined, will ALWAYS fall short of its true potential. why? because we are ALL plagued by a FALLEN NATURE. we are incapacitated by a downward bent towards sin. mind you, we are not totally depraved, but we are limited in our capacity to choose the good way. as such, it is detrimental to your salvation and our walk w/ God to rely solely on our reason when we are attempting to interpret something as essential as the Bible. there's just no way we can do this on our own. the fact is that if we do not have an infallible interpreter of the word of God, then we are bound to lapse into error.

you have yet to explain why you are ok w/ this. personally, my salvation is too important for me to rely on a fallible interpretation.

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.

hopefully, i have already adequately addressed this quote. btw, i resent that last sentence. i don't recall judging your character in my post.

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.

i contend yet again that "thinking for myself" is integral to catholicism, and is the VERY REASON why catholics accept the authority of the Church.

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.

i'm sorry dairygirl, but your comments about catholicism here make me think otherwise. the answers to all of your questions are easy to find. the fact that you have been unable to find them suggests to me that the proper rigor has not been applied. however, i have no place to judge your walk w/ God and your devotion to the truth. only you and God know just how honest your search has been. what i can tell you is that living it and even defending it does not necessarily mean that you know it.

an aversion to "long websites" is not going to help your cause either. if you are passionate about finding the truth, you will go to the greatest lengths, and read that very article that will take time to read. also, please know that just b/c a person suggests an article, that does not mean that they cannot provide an answer themselves. personally, i provide articles b/c i want the other person to learn as much as they possibly can. i don't speak on a matter if i feel like i will do it an injustice. this is not ignorance..........this is charity.

i believe i have now responded to all the points you made in your post. however, from two lengthy posts of mine, you only responded on a few things. i would still like to see your response to the following quotes of mine:

POST #1:

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 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.

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.

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 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.

POST #2:

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?

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.

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

graciously and charitably yours,

phatcatholic

[foundsheep]

phatcatholic your my hero. :wub:

[IcePrincessKRS]

phatcatholic your my hero. :wub:

Mine too. :D

[dairygirl4u2c]

I want to note that you should not reply to everything I say. When I say something, you should read the rest of it first. It just makes communicating easier. That way you don't think I'm attacking you for not having a backbone for instance. I was saying that because that's how I was as a Catholic.

I too use reason and just wanted to defend myself. I'm sure you know how it is people ridiculing you. I know what it is like now and was like as a Catholic, I'm sure you do too. But nevertheless, I am sorry for seeming to imply that you don't use reason. There must be something we both disagree on something.

POST #1:

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 believe what communion represents is what salvation is. That is, communion with your brother and sister in Christ. And no I don't believe in the real presence meaning that Jesus is present in the Eucharist physically. But I believe in the real presense of Jesus spiritually.

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.

I read the article. Here is what I dispute: "No Necessity to Define". I agree that if a general notion is agreed upon, and later defined in more detail, then that is legitimate development.

It appears from the strongly worded letters of the previous Popes that no salvation exists for non-Catholics at all. And to define the word Catholic is really redefining it since this the new definition contradicts the older though on the matter. I have read much on the Catholic Church. I realize some people say that Pope was writing to France and so it was only to those people. I've heard some people (semenarians whom I personally know) say the popes didn't even know what they were saying. But after all that is said and done, it seems as to define Catholic the way it is is a cop out. I've yet to see any context in those olden days to allow for any leniency for a shadow of a doubt that non church going Catholics can be saved. but only text that church going will. People will argue this was only lay men and fallible statements that backed this notion up. But again, the infallible words "no salvation.. etc" were written in that context, and therefore to say it means something else is a cop out.

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.

Edited February 28, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also phatcatholic. You get upset that you think I say you don't have a backbone when I then explained myself. And then imply that I may not be saved since I'm doing things "detrimental to my salvation". How arrogant is that? How can you possibly know my relationship with God?

If you mean salvation in a general sense that I will live in truth, perhaps. But if you mean salvation in that I will be in hell forever, how can you know this? I am not openly rejecting something I know is true. How can this be even by CC standards?

Edited February 28, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[phatcatholic]

dairygirl,

just writing quickly to let u know that i have read ur recent posts, and i will respond to them as soon as i get the chance.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[smeagol]

i have not had the time nor energy to read this whole thread until today, so forgive me for jumping in so late.

dairygirl, i just wanted to say i'm glad you're here. and i'm glad you're questioning the Church's teachings. it is so much better than simply taking someone else's word. if only more people did so... what God is telling you in your heart is more important than anything else any person (including those who work for the Church) could possible advise.

phatcatholic, while responding to dairygirl, could you elaborate on this quote from you? ... please

i contend yet again that "thinking for myself" is integral to catholicism, and is the VERY REASON why catholics accept the authority of the Church.

on face value it sounds contradictory, but lots of adages do, when in fact they contain a deeper truth. i just want to more fully understand how one can subordinate himself to the authority while thinking for himself.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i just want to more fully understand how one can subordinate himself to the authority while thinking for himself.

Not that I'm defending the CC per se but I'd say that if you know the Church is true based on church history evidence, you should follow it as best you can because you know it's true.

Now given the fact that doctrines can be redefined, (or still pending what is the case) I am not sure what to tell you exactly. But when I was a Catholic priests told me to give what is taught now guided by those in authority the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure what to tell you if you really really think something should be redefined or what have you. I think the person should be the judge, though I understand that the CC doesn't want peeps just doing whatever.

But this doesn't work for me, because there's some things I don't agree with... combined with vaque, inconclusive, and therefore quite possibly false history.

[Aloysius]

this 'false history' has nothing that conclusively prooves any other scenario.

the Church never redefines doctrines, it elaborates. "outside the Church there is no salvation" --- elaboration--- "Ordinarily you must belong the the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvaiton, but it must still be emphasized that the constant tradition of the Church has always believed in extra-ordinary means by which God saves ppl."

[smeagol]

what about indulgences?

in the 16th century, the Catholic Church sold--that's right sold--salvation. did the Church eventually redefine, elaborate, or abolish that altogether ?

[Dave]

what about indulgences?

in the 16th century, the Catholic Church sold--that's right sold--salvation. did the Church eventually redefine, elaborate, or abolish that altogether ?

The Catholic Church NEVER sold indulgences. Certain clergy and lay people misused the practice, but not once did the Church approve of it.

[IcePrincessKRS]

You beat me to it Dave. lol

http://www.newadvent.org/almanac/thisrock94.htm

One of the causes of the Reformation was the selling of indulgences. Does the Catholic Church still sell them?

That's like asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The Catholic Church does not now or has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences--but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church's teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church.

In the sixteenth century, when the abuse of indulgences was at its height, Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534) wrote about the problem: "Preachers act in the name of the Church so long as they teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach, guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church; it need not be wondered that they go astray."

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) issued a decree that gave Church teaching on indulgences and that provided stringent guidelines to eliminate abuses:

Since the power of granting indulgences was conferred by Christ on the Church (cf. Matt. 16:19, 18:18, John 20:23), and she has even in the earliest times made use of that power divinely given to her, the holy council teaches and commands that the use of indulgences, most salutary to the Christian people and approved by the authority of the holy councils, is to be retained in the Church, and it condemns with anathema those who assert that they are useless or deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.

In granting them, however, it desires that in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church moderation be observed, lest by too great facility ecclesiastical discipline be weakened. But desiring that the abuses which have become connected with them, and by any reason of which this excellent name of indulgences be blasphemed by the heretics, be amended and corrected, it ordains in a general way by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has been a most prolific source of abuses among the Christian people, be absolutely abolished. Other abuses, however, of this kind which have sprung from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatever other sources, since by reason of the manifold corruptions in places and provinces where they are committed, they cannot conveniently be prohibited individually, it commands all bishops diligently to make note of, each in his own church, and report them to the next provincial synod" (Sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences).

In 1967 Pope Paul VI reiterated Catholic teaching on indulgences and added new reforms in his apostolic constitution Indulgentarium Doctrina (cf. Vatican II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. [Northport, New York: Costello, 1980], 62-79).

Why are religious groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses called "cults," while other groups, such as Fundamentalists and Calvinists, are not? Don't all of these groups teach cultic doctrines?

The word "cult" has fallen on hard times. Used authentically, it refers to a grouping of people for some religious purpose; it can also refer to specific ceremonial, liturgical, and prayer activities carried out within a particular group. Vatican II, for example, refers to the "cult of the saints," meaning the honor and devotion Christians show to Christians who are now reigning with Christ in heaven. Used this way, "cult" carries no pejorative connotations.

In the last few decades an unfortunatue phenomenon has sprung up, primarily among Evangelical Protestants who have appropriated the word and used it to categorize religious groups with whom they disagree. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have become "cultists," and their religions are branded as "cults." In popular jargon "cult" implies more than just a religion with odd tenets. It carries the implication that the group has a hidden agenda, uses deception and mind control techniques to keep its members in line, and may be satanic in origin. Calling someone a "cultist" has become a handy stick with which to beat members of minority religions. Some Fundamentalists call the Catholic Church a cult.

Of course, some religions are cults, but it's a matter of prudence whether to trumpet that fact. If you want to evangelize adherents to such religions, you must avoid approaches that will alienate them. Be firm but charitable. Don't throw around the terms "cult" and "cultist." With a little restraint you'll more likely get your message across. If you start by telling a non-Catholic that he's a member of a cult (even if he is), it's unlikely that he'll listen to anything you have to say.

When did the custom of canonizing saints start, and is it true that canonizations are infallible?

Here are excerpts from two articles on canonization of saints; they are taken from The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967):

The solemn act by which the pope, with definitive sentence, inscribes in the catalogue of saints a person who has previously been beatified. By this act he declares that the person placed on the altar now reigns in eternal glory and decrees that the universal Church show him the honor due to a saint. The formulas indicate that the pope imposes a precept on the faithful, e.g. "We decide and define that they are saints and inscribe them in the catalogue of saints, stating that their memory should be kept with pious devotion by the universal Church."

The faithful of the primitive Church believed that martyrs were perfect Christians and saints since they had shown the supreme proof of love by giving their lives for Christ; by their sufferings, they had attained eternal life and were indefectibly united to Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. These reasons induced the Christians, still oppressed by persecution, to invoke the intercession of the martyrs. They begged them to intercede before God to obtain for the faithful on earth the grace to imitate the martyrs in the unquestioning and complete profession of faith [1 Tim. 2:1-5, Phil. 3:17] . . . .

Toward the end of the great Roman persecutions, this phenomenon of veneration, which had been reserved to martyrs, was extended to those who, even without dying for the faith, had nonetheless defended it and suffered for it, confessors of the faith (confessores fidei). Within a short time, this same veneration was extended to those who had been outstanding for their exemplary Christian life, especially in austerity and penitence, as well as to those who excelled in Catholic doctrine (doctors), in apostolic zeal (bishops and missionaries), or in charity and the evangelical spirit . . . .

In the first centuries the popular fame or the vox populi represented in practice the only criterion by which a person's holiness was ascertained. A new element was gradually introduced, namely, the intervention of the ecclesiastical authority, i.e., of the competent bishop. However, the fame of sanctity, as a result of which the faithful piously visited the person's tomb, invoked his intercession, and proclaimed the thaumaturgic [miraculous] effects of it, remained the starting point of those inquiries that culminated with a definite pronouncement on the part of the bishop. A biography of the deceased person and a history of his alleged miracles were presented to the bishop. Following a judgment of approval, the body was exhumed and transferred to an altar. Finally, a day was assigned for the celebration of the liturgical feast within the diocese or province.

The transition from episcopal to papal canonization came about somewhat casually. The custom was gradually introduced of having recourse to the pope in order to receive a formal approval of canonization. This practice was prompted obviously because a canonization decreed by the pope would necessarily have greater prestige, owing to his supreme authority. The first papal canonization of which there are positive documents was that of St. Udalricus in 973 . . . . Through the gradual multiplications of the Roman pontiffs, papal canonization received a more definite structure and juridical value. Procedural norms were formulated, and such canonical processes became the main source of investigation into the saint's life and miracles. Under Gregory IX, this practice became the only legitimate form of inquiry (1234) . . . .

The dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as set forth in the profession of faith of Trent (cf. Denz. 1867) has as its correlative the power to canonize . . . . St. Thomas Aquinas says, "Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err" (Quodl. 9:8:16).

The pope cannot by solemn definition induce errors concerning faith and morals into the teaching of the universal Church. Should the Church hold up for universal veneration a man's life and habits that in reality led to [his] damnation, it would lead the faithful into error. It is now theologically certain that the solemn canonization of a saint is an infallible and irrevocable decision of the supreme pontiff. God speaks infallibly through his Church as it demonstrates and exemplifies its universal teaching in a particular person or judges that person's acts to be in accord with its teaching.

May the Church ever "uncanonize" a saint? Once completed, the act of canonization is irrevocable. In some cases a person has been popularly "canonized" without official solemnization by the Church . . . yet any act short of solemn canonization by the Roman pontiff is not an infallible declaration of sanctity. Should circumstances demand, the Church may limit the public cult of such a person popularly "canonized" (vol. 3, 55-56, 59, 61)