With What Do You Disagree?

I would agree with you about purgatory and indulgences. I would add to that the necessity for infant Baptism, and if some of the seven sacraments are really sacraments, such as confessional absolution, confirmation and even marriage (a review of the history of marriage in the Church would show that it was not a norm until well into the second millennium).

The teaching about contraception was a huge error promulgated by a few who influenced the pope to make a decision that was contrary to the recommendations of the pope's hand picked advisors, who included theologians, lay experts, bishops and cardinals. The decision was based on the desire to not contradict the teaching of prior popes, rather than on well-grounded theology.

I cannot accept the idea of a "first man and woman", whose "original sin" was engineered by God to be inevitable, thereby infecting every human being afterward.

As much as I love Pope Francis, the idea of a Supreme Pontiff is not theologically defendable, so I view any pope as simply the Bishop of Rome who may be a spiritual leader and instructor in the faith deserving of my respect, but who has no authority over me whatsoever.

I see no problem with the ordination of women, since there is ample evidence that women were ordained, at least as deacons, in the early church, and performed functions that were only later restricted to ordained males.

I really see no reason that an ordained, celibate male is required in order to celebrate the Eucharistic mass, since again there is clear evidence that those who led the early Eucharistic gatherings were not always celibate, not always male, and not ordained (other than by being chosen by and from their own community to perform that particular ministry). Also, it is a huge leap to believe that every presbyter (bishop) was "descended" from one of the twelve apostles. Apostolic succession is simply an impossibility, given the nature of the times and the growth of the church.

Before you respond by calling me a heretic, be aware that there are many respected Catholic theologians, scholars and historians, past and present, and various church fathers throughout history, who have said and written the same. As much as most Catholics like to think church theology is uniformly accepted, in truth it isn't, and the compelling evidence for that is all the theologians, priests and bishops the Church has tried to suppress and marginalize over the centuries for questioning the orthodoxy of the time or advocating for "unorthodox" ideas.

ALoveDivine said:

Where do you all disagree, if at all, theologically?

Click to expand...

This really kills be because, just over a year ago, I
had a desire—it was literally a craving—to return to
the Catholic church. I was *thrilled* to be back,
even knowing that there were some beliefs I wasn't
about to ditch simply because I was practicing
Catholicism again. My enthusiasm faded relatively
quickly due to the 'judgy' attitudes of fellow
Catholics I encountered here and there.

But it seems that, in spite of this, there's enough
flexibility within Catholicism—if not the Church,
definitely the culture—that one could do/believe just
about anything and call oneself "Catholic". Catholics
such as Richard Rohr, and Stephen Colbert (you mean
you don't have to go to confession for doing that
hilarious but often coarse material?? ) were and
are an inspiration to me—they prove one doesn't
have to be a somber Stepford type to be Catholic.

So, as far as disagreements with the Church go: I'm
on board with what you guys have shared.

In addition, I disagree with the concept of going to a
priest for confession. Especially with the importance
of it seeming to trump that of the Eucharist, the
latter which is supposed to be the most important
aspect of Mass. For the sake of keeping this short, I
elaborate on that elsewhere, which can be read whenever
you're bored : Confession Superior to Communion?

Then there's the more paranoid side of me
wondering, given this high-tech age, if they've ever
considered placing hidden cameras in the
confessional booths. I mean, seriously, worse
has, allegedly, happened in those things.

I'm also universalistic in my soteriology, so I don't
subscribe to there being endless torment for those
who die in unbelief or the like. The worst that there
might be is a purgatorial kind of thing, and much of
that could simply be the jolt that comes with no
longer being in one's physical body anymore upon
death.

The cool thing with that is, I suspect Pope John Paul II
had some universalistic leanings himself, given
what he's said about universal salvation (such as it
being an "invincible guarantee").

Further, is any such theological disagreement possible within the church, and if so to what extent and why?

Click to expand...

Sure, I think it's possible. It's happening as we speak;
we are living proof of that.

There's a saying, "Once a Catholic, always a
Catholic." An apologist over at Catholic Answers
stated that it's the sacraments, especially that of
baptism, that makes one a Catholic, and not how well
they understand or practice the faith (source). So I
figure that if the Church can call me a Catholic even
when I'm not always believing/behaving like one,
then I can call me a Catholic even when I'm
not always believing and behaving like one.




-

Very good points, Chaela. I have wondered about the Sacraments for a long time, especially after reading what Jesus said and did in the Gospels and realizing that none of them are his commandments. Jesus did say in one Gospel that the disciples should baptize, but he did not state that it was a necessity for becoming a Christian or for salvation. In the other Gospels it is not a directive at all nor does it appear central to being accepted as a disciple.

Confession is another. If we did it as Jesus taught we would be confessing before our parish community; think about that on Youtube!

In many eras and cultures, Confirmation was/is done with first Communion, and for many centuries it was not a sacrament at all, which should make one wonder how it could have been instituted by Jesus. And limiting the reception of the Eucharist to "qualified" people according to man-made rules is nonsense. The faithful who are barred from communion are often the ones who could benefit the most. Our current rules make it an elitist practice, rather than the inclusive and welcoming rite it should be. I think Jesus would be with those whom the
Church says are not worthy to receive him, and condemning the "scribes and Pharisees" of the institutional church for placing artificial barriers before the people.

It is true that JP2 and all the pope's of the past 60 years have said and taught ideas and done things that to many lay Catholics seem a little un-orthodox. There are some Catholics who think we have not had a legitimate pope since Pius XII, and that all those since are, at the minimum, heretics. But these seemingly "unorthodox" ideas circulate and are discussed constantly amongst theologians and scholars, which several of our recent popes have been. Anyone can find them and learn about them.

(-)

Martinius said:

Very good points, Chaela. I have wondered about the Sacraments for a long time, especially after reading what Jesus said and did in the Gospels and realizing that none of them are his commandments. Jesus did say in one Gospel that the disciples should baptize, but he did not state that it was a necessity for becoming a Christian or for salvation. In the other Gospels it is not a directive at all nor does it appear central to being accepted as a disciple.

Confession is another. If we did it as Jesus taught we would be confessing before our parish community; think about that on Youtube!

In many eras and cultures, Confirmation was/is done with first Communion, and for many centuries it was not a sacrament at all, which should make one wonder how it could have been instituted by Jesus. And limiting the reception of the Eucharist to "qualified" people according to man-made rules is nonsense. The faithful who are barred from communion are often the ones who could benefit the most. Our current rules make it an elitist practice, rather than the inclusive and welcoming rite it should be. I think Jesus would be with those whom the
Church says are not worthy to receive him, and condemning the "scribes and Pharisees" of the institutional church for placing artificial barriers before the people.

It is true that JP2 and all the pope's of the past 60 years have said and taught ideas and done things that to many lay Catholics seem a little un-orthodox. There are some Catholics who think we have not had a legitimate pope since Pius XII, and that all those since are, at the minimum, heretics. But these seemingly "unorthodox" ideas circulate and are discussed constantly amongst theologians and scholars, which several of our recent popes have been. Anyone can find them and learn about them.

Click to expand...

I thought that I would comment on the sacraments. Anglicans have a view that two were initiated by Jesus, baptism (in the Gospel of Matthew) and the Eucharist (in the 6th Chapter of John's Gospel). The other five are lesser sacraments. With regard to sacraments and salvation, the issue is the definition of salvation. If we are discussing eternal life, all Christians believe that we are saved by Grace through faith in Christ Jesus. We are saved by the the Grace of Mercy of God, not by a sacrament.

Hello! Delighted to find a place to safely discuss some of the issues I have. I am a new-ish catholic (3 years now?) and I love my faith, and work hard at understanding all of the teachings. And I don't claim "I" am right and the Church is "wrong". But I do have some struggles - 2 biggies for me - closed communion; gay/lesbian issues.

I have read a great deal regarding the Church's views on both these very important matters and have decided I can live with my tension/struggle.

Zaidagal said:

Hello! Delighted to find a place to safely discuss some of the issues I have. I am a new-ish catholic (3 years now?) and I love my faith, and work hard at understanding all of the teachings. And I don't claim "I" am right and the Church is "wrong". But I do have some struggles - 2 biggies for me - closed communion; gay/lesbian issues.

I have read a great deal regarding the Church's views on both these very important matters and have decided I can live with my tension/struggle.

Click to expand...

Most Catholics can and do "live with" the issues they have in and with the Church. There are some that say those people are "cafeteria Catholics", or even heretics, and would like them to toe the line or leave. But that is just not going to happen.

I recall talking to my pastor a few years back when the Vatican was getting heavy handed with American nuns and our diocese was in the midst of dealing with the abuse scandal, which spotlighted the disgusting non-performance and obvious deceitfullness of the leadership. I asked to see him privately and when we met he appeared a little worried. But when I presented my concerns about these issues as my reason for seeing him he was visibly relieved. Then after discussing my concerns and reasons I concluded by saying that, although I would maintain my faith in the Catholic Church and my love for and participation in our parish, I had lost almost all respect for our diocesan leaders and for the Vatican hierarchy, and no longer felt any allegiance to them, and considered their decisions to be non-binding on me (unless I acquiesced to them). He sat back, smiled, and told me that I was not the first to tell him that and that he had no issue with my position.

I then wrote a fairly scathing letter to our bishop, in response to his letter asking us to increase our donation to his annual appeal (which had failed to meet its goal, not surprisingly). I told him why we would not send him any more money, and suggested he get what he needed from the lawyers to whom the diocese had paid tens of millions of dollars to fight abuse claims. I also said that instead of giving more money to the diocese, we had donated directly to individual organizations, such as CRS and religious orders. I warned my pastor that he might hear from the bishop about my nasty letter. Instead, I received a response two months later from our bishop, mostly a formula letter, in which he commiserated with my feelings but never came close to addressing my concerns. And of course, expressing hope that we might donate more money in the future!

As far as your specific concerns, in both cases and many more the Church has backed itself into a doctrinal corner. It is ludicrous, illogical and a trampling of the Gospel to deny the Eucharist to people who want it and need it. But to change the rules would mean admitting that past popes, councils and the Magisterium were wrong. Just as in the case of Pope Paul VI and contraception, no pope or Curia wants to be remembered for reversing a long standing doctrinal "tradition", no matter how bad it is, how un-unscriptural it is, or how much it hurts the Church and the people of God. Pope Francis is attempting some movement on communion, but there is huge pushback from those who value intransigent thinking over the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels and the idea of serving others in need.

The issue of gay/lesbian Catholics is a huge dilemma for the Church, for several reasons. A big one for me is that there has always been a tacit recognition of homosexuality (and correspondingly, heterosexuality) in the Church, but kept "undercover" just like abuse by priests has been. Second, and without getting into a theology discussion here, if we believe that God created each and every one of us, then we have to admit that God created gays. To treat gays/lesbians as second class humans is to go against God, and is reminiscent of slavery and other past discriminatory beliefs and practices.

I did not intend to make my response so lengthy, but what you posted deserved recognition and response.

Martinius - Thanks for your response! As a new-ish Catholic Im trying really hard to form my understanding along the lines of the catechism and the teachings of the magesterium. Im trying to be humble, and know that where I dont understand, its probably me thats at fault. Saying that, the issue of closed communion - I have a feeling Ill never sit comfortably with it.....and I also will probably never sit comfortably with denying people with same sex attraction the ability to have sexual relationships. Now, I was secular for most of my life, and some ways of thinking are hard to get over....I probably dont have the same "baggage" for lack of a better term that some life long Catholics might have in terms of anger at the Church, but I do have my very secular upbringing to always contend with....so......I keep thinking about this stuff, discussing, reading, but ultimately, I need to be able to be honest about where my comfort level lies. And I always try to veer on the side of charity.

Blessings!

Martinius said:

The issue of gay/lesbian Catholics is a huge dilemma for the Church, for several reasons. A big one for me is that there has always been a tacit recognition of homosexuality (and correspondingly, heterosexuality) in the Church, but kept "undercover" just like abuse by priests has been. Second, and without getting into a theology discussion here, if we believe that God created each and every one of us, then we have to admit that God created gays. To treat gays/lesbians as second class humans is to go against God, and is reminiscent of slavery and other past discriminatory beliefs and practices.

Click to expand...

While I agree with your conclusions regard the treatment of homosexuals, I disagree with your analysis.

I believe that the issues of homosexuality and that of the sexual abuse must be separated. And yes, I understand that the vast majority of the scandal had to with priests' abuse with young boys.

Homosexuality is NOT inherently related to paedophilia or sexual abuse of post-adolescents. In the end, we are dealing with the definition of marriage, a definition related to one the relatively minor sacraments. However, since this is a sacrament, the issue is important. Also, the requirements for Holy Orders are an issue. I mention this because it is clear (at least to me), that in this issue, we are NOT dealing with the dogma of the Church.

*subscribing*

Hi,
Whether I am liberal or not, I do not know. What I do not like about the Catholic Church, is their mistakes Biblically.
Married Priests are Biblical.
Mark 9:38-42 and there abouts says if they are not against us they are for us, and we who know much are not to give a hard time to those who know little.
That last on forbade the Inquistion.
Bowing to a Pope, when Peter forbade it, bothers me.
When Paul had to correct the present version of the Pope then, to listen to the Pope as though he is infallible, without him making everyone know he is not, I do not like.
To call a priest father rather than priest, seems wrong.
To not use science in Galileo's case, if you look at the words they used and not the populuar Apologistics, even though that is Biblical.
To not use Government laws when that is in Romans 13:1-5.
To say the priest is above us, meaning also in holiness when so many of them are not that is wrong.
That is some of my objections. I like 85% of all that is Roman Catholic and follow it.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

Katerinah1947,

Thanks for your post. Although I am not sure I understand each of your points, I can appreciate the ones I do. Like many older Catholics, at one time I revered priests and thought of them as holier than the "normal" Catholic. As I got to know some of them, I found that not to be the case. And most priests today do not act as if they are above everyone else. Even some bishops I have had the pleasure to meet are down to earth. I see Pope Francis as also being like that.

The matter of a "pope" with authority over everyone has been a contentious issue for centuries. There was no "pope" who presided over the Church for hundreds of years. Even when the position of "pope" was recognized, his powers were not as broad as they have become. I like the fact that Francis calls himself Bishop of Rome, which I think is a more realistic way to view him.

As far as the Church and science, we cannot change history and the Church has confessed its error in the case of Galileo. Today they seem to generally embrace scientific advances and do not oppose them as has occurred until fairly recently.

Unfortunately, the Church has not always been good at following the Bible, especially the Gospels. But that too has improved in recent decades, perhaps due to our increasing knowledge of scripture and our ability to compare and question Church teachings and statements with what Jesus taught. Some of your points fall in that category.

By the way, Paul never corrected a "pope"', since there was no pope then. Peter was not anything like a pope; he would have denied such a label, the other Apostles would not have called him that, and none of them would have had a clue as to what that meant. Like with some other doctrines and teachings, the Church has "back dated" the concept of "pope" to make it appear that there was always a single leader for the entire Church.

Martinius said:

By the way, Paul never corrected a "pope"', since there was no pope then. Peter was not anything like a pope; he would have denied such a label, the other Apostles would not have called him that, and none of them would have had a clue as to what that meant. Like with some other doctrines and teachings, the Church has "back dated" the concept of "pope" to make it appear that there was always a single leader for the entire Church.

Click to expand...

I agree that the role of the leader of the Church was much, much different at the time of the apostles. It developed over the first few centuries, as did much of Church doctrine/dogma. I believe the Latin understanding of the role of the pope expanded greatly after the last ecumenical council attended by the East in 787 to the point where the Creed was unilaterally changed, new doctrines were announced, and the idea of counsel with other patriarchs & bishops all but disappeared. It is this new role that resulted in the excesses of the Church at the time of the Reformation, excesses that we still have not evolved from.

My personal list
-----------------
Married priests should be allowed to be priests.
Divorced and remarried Catholics should be welcomed back to the Table (the annulment process is a sham)
Contraception should be allowed (allowing only "natural" contraception is a sham)
Indulgences should be abolished.
The understandings of sin, atonement and a Christian life is much too legalistic; the Orthodox approach is much better.
Communion should be open to all baptized Christians.
The Church should support secular marriage of homosexuals, and defend all their secular rights.
The understanding of which teachings are dogma/doctrines and therefore essential is much too broad.
There should be more acceptance of other Christian churches (I suspect that this is a problem with those in the pews)

Mark46:

Your list is good, and reflects many of the main concerns of many Catholics, including theologians and fair number in the hierarchy. I would disagree somewhat with the last one, acceptance of other Christian churches, as being a problem for the people in the pews. I would suspect that almost every Catholic family has a relative who is of another faith, and family members who have left Catholicism for something else. I have to believe that most lay Catholics would find it easy to accept and welcome other Christians. The issue instead is one of a doctrine through which the Church has painted itself into a corner. It goes back centuries and to the statements of various popes and councils, in times when it was THE Church or else. The Hierarchical Church has put its faith and trust in dogma, rather than in God working amongst us through the Holy Spirit.

Martinius said:

I would disagree somewhat with the last one, acceptance of other Christian churches, as being a problem for the people in the pews. I would suspect that almost every Catholic family has a relative who is of another faith, and family members who have left Catholicism for something else. I have to believe that most lay Catholics would find it easy to accept and welcome other Christians. The issue instead is one of a doctrine through which the Church has painted itself into a corner. It goes back centuries and to the statements of various popes and councils, in times when it was THE Church or else. The Hierarchical Church has put its faith and trust in dogma, rather than in God working amongst us through the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

I ma struck as how much the popes since Vatican II have been reaching out to other churches. I have also been appalled at the views of so many at OBOB and some of the "old guard" in the pews regarding the same subject. Also, priests are on both "sides". I recall a priest giving a homily after a vacation up North. He related that many of the unchurched were choosing to go to Protestant churches. Instead of celebrating that the unchurched are coming to the church, he thought this a really terrible thing.

I agree that the Church, in its pre-Vatican II statements has painted itself in a corner. Obviously, it has chose not to change some of the old positions.

mark46 said:

My personal list
-----------------
1.)Married priests should be allowed to be priests.
2.)Divorced and remarried Catholics should be welcomed back to the Table (the annulment process is a sham)
3.)Contraception should be allowed (allowing only "natural" contraception is a sham)
4.)Indulgences should be abolished.
5.)The understandings of sin, atonement and a Christian life is much too legalistic; the 6.)Orthodox approach is much better.
7.)Communion should be open to all baptized Christians.
8.)The Church should support secular marriage of homosexuals, and defend all their secular rights.
9.)The understanding of which teachings are dogma/doctrines and therefore essential is much too broad.
10.0There should be more acceptance of other Christian churches (I suspect that this is a problem with those in the pews)

Click to expand...

Hi,
Wow. Thanks for the list. I am going to number all of your items for easy, actual agreement, but technically for referencing easily.
1.0) Yes, it looks like that should be changed to what it originally was, Biblically.
2.0) Probably. I can say, that normally if a Catholic gets divorced, it is for Biblically sound reasons. The normal Biblically sound reasons, religion, and I think adultery. The church has added, failing to abide by the marriage contracturally, thus even misrepresenting or not knowing yourself, thus causing a problem later on, is contracturally a nullification.
3.) I can see contraception being allowed as a mercy to child and the parents. I also know that every mother I have talked to, knows each and misses each and every child she has aborted, or miscarried.
4.) This one, I have heard of and know nothing other than if it is based on the goodness and holiness of priests, granting some of their holiness to us, as I heard once, then yes it makes no sense as many priests, it looks like God even is upset with them.
5.) I don't know this one.
6.) I don't know this one either.
7.) I can understand your view here, and I would think, if one just means they are sorry to Jesus, for all they have done wrong, this might make sense.
8.) Under Genesis 1:28 and the command to do science, under Romans 13:1-5 and the command to follow government laws, they are commanded to.
9.) And that which is ex-cathedra, therefore from The Holy Spirit, and therefore not changeable, are also never given clearly, thus it is all too nebulous, to the parishioners, many of whom are highly skilled, proven and educated in similar fields, should also be included
10.) I love this one of yours. Biblically, it is all in Jesus's words as found in Mark 9:38-42 and there abouts. ''Part of Jesus's point there to the then bishops of that time, is and was, if they know less than you do, don't bother them by making them angry. The responsibiity is on you, who know much to be gentle with those that know little of me. I can accept a person, even if they have much wrong about me, I can accept a person who knows just one thing about me. Do not anger them and do not tell them how to approach me in public with your anger, and your rules that apply to you, who know more. Do not.''
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

We must pray about #10. Jesus prayed that we all be one. To think that the Father has rejected this prayer seems very wrong to me. We are all one in Christ, and in Christ's church/Church. We simply refuse to recognize the unity we have in Christ. From my reading of the popes since the 60's, I think that they understand this very well.

mark46 said:

We must pray about #10. Jesus prayed that we all be one. To think that the Father has rejected this prayer seems very wrong to me. We are all one in Christ, and in Christ's church/Church. We simply refuse to recognize the unity we have in Christ. From my reading of the popes since the 60's, I think that they understand this very well.

Click to expand...

Hi,
Yes to let's pray about this.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

Hi again,

What I see everywhere is not recognizing what is right in all the churches. What I also see, normally, but not with a certain kind of Christian, no, not ever with them, but with other Christians, I see this. They find fault with other churches, and never look to see what they are correct on.
For me recently who came from the world, and in my case found the Bible is Real, therefore God is Real, I used to see good everywhere, then I lost that thinking only Christians, had any good in them and even they for the most part, like me even, were not that good, really.
Then last year, as I am talked to by God and those of God occasionally, an Archangel told me that I was to learn something. He was not here just for the boy he was sent to protect and to tell him some things, but that he was to tell me some things also.
From that exchange, I learned that there are those of God, who do not know God in the way that Christians do, but are very much loved and working for God, at least by default, as they too in their lives are ~just and rightious where those two words mean the same thing.~
I am salt Biblically, and I can make a case for all ~just and rightious people~ being salt also. Yet, your God and my God, who is one and the same God, said to us one day: Too much salt is not a good thing.
How, I am asking myself can too much salt, not be a good thing? That ~I am not allowed to say, as it is too advanced, but I do understand it. It works something like this. If Knowledge of God is the goal for all humans, and since we are lazy by nature for everything, then bad things happening to us (from the non salt types), and good things happening to us (from the ones that are salt), both are needed to cause humans to search, look and then find out about God. Wow, I just did say most of it.~
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .