A whiff of schism: When different Catholics hold radically different beliefs

[Martinius]

Don't we pray that the Lord's will should be done here on earth as it is in heaven,
and isn't that therefore praying for unity of belief?

Absolutely the Lord's will should be done on earth, but some may believe that the Church does not entirely do what is God's will, and that some of what it wants its members to believe may not be in line with God's will, or not necessary to do that will. There is something called conscience, which can and should take precedence over instititutional rules when they come in conflict.

An example of what I am talking about is contrasting the Creed with the myriad statements of dogma and doctrine that the Church "requires" us to believe. Over the centuries, the Church has added all of these, and most of us do not even really know what they all are. And to insist that people believe something they don't know or understand is useless. It also does not seem to be what Jesus wants from us to be his disciples, since there is little in the Gospels about agreeing to a laundry list of beliefs.

 

[pdudgeon]

Absolutely the Lord's will should be done on earth, but some may believe that the Church does not entirely do what is God's will, and that some of what it wants its members to believe may not be in line with God's will, or not necessary to do that will. There is something called conscience, which can and should take precedence over instititutional rules when they come in conflict.

An example of what I am talking about is contrasting the Creed with the myriad statements of dogma and doctrine that the Church "requires" us to believe. Over the centuries, the Church has added all of these, and most of us do not even really know what they all are. And to insist that people believe something they don't know or understand is useless. It also does not seem to be what Jesus wants from us to be his disciples, since there is little in the Gospels about agreeing to a laundry list of beliefs.

there is a remedy for a lack of knowledge. it's called a Catechism.
a paperback version costs about the same as 5 cups of Starbucks coffee.

as for discipleship, Jesus asked 3 things:
1. faith
2. belief
3. take action

you could take them in that order, or do them in reverse order.
either way your faith will be strengthened, and that's a good thing.

 

[Martinius]

there is a remedy for a lack of knowledge. it's called a Catechism.
a paperback version costs about the same as 5 cups of Starbucks coffee.

as for discipleship, Jesus asked 3 things:
1. faith
2. belief
3. take action

you could take them in that order, or do them in reverse order.
either way your faith will be strengthened, and that's a good thing.

What did Jesus mean by "belief"? Actually, Jesus wanted his disciples to "believe", not to hold certain beliefs. Two different things. As we know, the Church emphasizes holding certain beliefs over faith, believing and action. The actions the Church insists on revolve around the sacraments more than following the Gospel.

The Catechism is valuable (I have at least three) but I doubt many Catholics will trudge through it, and when they do they might end up even more confused. I also don't recall Jesus handing out Catechisms or teaching from one during his time on earth.

 

[Rhamiel]

@Martinius you should read "The Catholic Controversy" by St. Francis De Sales

a respected Doctor of the Church, he goes into great detail about unity of faith, the authority of the Church, and how we can rest assured in the infallibility of the Church

 

[pdudgeon]

What did Jesus mean by "belief"? Actually, Jesus wanted his disciples to "believe", not to hold certain beliefs. Two different things. As we know, the Church emphasizes holding certain beliefs over faith, believing and action. The actions the Church insists on revolve around the sacraments more than following the Gospel.

The Catechism is valuable (I have at least three) but I doubt many Catholics will trudge through it, and when they do they might end up even more confused. I also don't recall Jesus handing out Catechisms or teaching from one during his time on earth.

what Jesus asked for from others was belief; either in Him or in the works that He did.

He gave them a choice knowing that for most people, believing that Jesus was the Son of God would be a long stretch, but seeing a healing for themselves of someone whom they knew had been sick or dying would be a real wonder.
The old phrase "I won't believe it until I see it" found it's home in Thomas, but it also found a devoute disciple.

as for the Church and how people act or don't act, it always pays to remember that everyone is human and no one is perfect---yet! That's why we say that life on Earth is practice for heaven, and the Bible and the Magisterium are our textbooks.

as for 'trudging through the catechism' it's there to be used.
what you use it for is up to you, but it will be more valuable as a textbook than as something else.
So a hungry person sitting at a table with three plates of food set before him, might be reasonably doubted if he were to leave the table complaining of hunger when the three plates were still full of untouched food.
unless he just wanted to be hungry.

but let's try an experiment. Grab one Catechism, open to a random page and read the page. that's all, just one page, and see if you learned anything.

 

[pdudgeon]

Absolutely the Lord's will should be done on earth, but some may believe that the Church does not entirely do what is God's will, and that some of what it wants its members to believe may not be in line with God's will, or not necessary to do that will. There is something called conscience, which can and should take precedence over instititutional rules when they come in conflict.

An example of what I am talking about is contrasting the Creed with the myriad statements of dogma and doctrine that the Church "requires" us to believe. Over the centuries, the Church has added all of these, and most of us do not even really know what they all are. And to insist that people believe something they don't know or understand is useless. It also does not seem to be what Jesus wants from us to be his disciples, since there is little in the Gospels about agreeing to a laundry list of beliefs.

what you are talking about is a conscience formed by and/or influenced by something other than the Church.
and that presents a problem, because such a conscience will never ever agree with God.

If we let it, we can easily and skillfully go against our conscience when we think it's in our best interest to do so. Or if we decide that we know better. And we might think we can get away with doing that--even convince ourselves that we're smarter than others, etc.

Satan loves that!
The truth is that God gave us a conscience so that we could tell right from wrong and also so that we could have an ever-present early warnng system to put a check on ourselves, and to keep us out of trouble.
That's why taking care about how our conscience is formed,
and what we let influence us is so very important.

as for what Jesus taught His disciples, you need to remember two things;
1. He knew them way before they knew Him. He knew everything about them from the beginning.
And He still chose them.
2. After the betrayel, the crucifiction, His death and burrial, and resurection--after they walked away from it all--He chose them again.
In spite of everything that had happened, would happen, and will happen, He chose them.

what that all means is that Jesus had confidence there would be a church left when He returned.
what He wondered about was whether He would find faith.

Faith is what we have left when everything else that is present is gone.
and when everything and everyone tells us to give up, faith is what keeps us going.

That's what He will be looking for.
not excuses, just faith.

 

[pdudgeon]

What did Jesus mean by "belief"? Actually, Jesus wanted his disciples to "believe", not to hold certain beliefs. Two different things. As we know, the Church emphasizes holding certain beliefs over faith, believing and action. The actions the Church insists on revolve around the sacraments more than following the Gospel.

The Catechism is valuable (I have at least three) but I doubt many Catholics will trudge through it, and when they do they might end up even more confused. I also don't recall Jesus handing out Catechisms or teaching from one during his time on earth.

belief is what you have intellectually. it's a matter of assent.
believe is what you do. it is a conscious action, from the heart.

it is possible to have belief, acknowledge it, and not act upon it.
and it is also possible to deny belief.
the doing is where the rubber meets the road.

 

[Martinius]

what Jesus asked for from others was belief; either in Him or in the works that He did.

Well, not quite. Jesus wanted us "to believe in" him, not hold certain beliefs. You have the right idea, but are mixing up the words and what they mean. If I say I believe in you, it does not mean I think you exist. It means I am placing my faith, trust, and/or confidence in you. That's what Jesus was looking for, something that we call faith. He didn't hand out a list of doctrines that people had to accept to be his disciples.

 

[Martinius]

what you are talking about is a conscience formed by and/or influenced by something other than the Church.

No one, even the Church, can form our conscience for us. If it tries to, it is not conscience but blind obedience or brain washing. The Church can help us form our conscience, but I personally believe that most of what constitutes our conscience comes from elsewhere, perhaps directly from God. I say that because certain moral and ethical precepts seem to be universal (natural law?). The Catholic Church did not do this, no one person or institution did this. Therefore, our conscience should be the greatest factor (but not the only factor) in how we live our lives.

 

[Rhamiel]

Well, not quite. Jesus wanted us "to believe in" him, not hold certain beliefs. You have the right idea, but are mixing up the words and what they mean. If I say I believe in you, it does not mean I think you exist. It means I am placing my faith, trust, and/or confidence in you. That's what Jesus was looking for, something that we call faith. He didn't hand out a list of doctrines that people had to accept to be his disciples.

Matthew 28:18-20
18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”


Jesus DID give a set of teachings to His Apostles, this is what is understood as "Apostolic Tradition"
the Church is a visible community with an authoritative hierarchy in it, Jesus formed this so that we might know the truth about Him
the Church is called the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)
the Church has the ability to bind and loose, casting out those who reject her authority (Matthew 18:17-18)

also, if people believe false things about Jesus, then they do not really believe in Jesus, but rather in a false thing
like if I say "I believe in Jesus" but I think Jesus is just a man, and not Divine at all, then we do not believe in the same person


when Saul of Tarsus was persecuting the Church, he heard the voice of Christ call out "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" (Acts 9:4)

not "why are you persecuting my church?" because in a real way the Church is the Body of Christ, so harming the Church, or rejecting the Church is a serious sin against our Lord and God

and you if you think I am going over board, you might want to read the worlds of our Lord
Luke 10:16
"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."
so those who reject the Church reject Christ
those who do not believe the teachings of the Church do not believe Christ

 

[Martinius]

but let's try an experiment. Grab one Catechism, open to a random page and read the page. that's all, just one page, and see if you learned anything.

Okay, I tried your experiment, except I chose the pages, rather than pick one at random. I found a section on moral decision making and conscience. Here are verbatim quotes of two paragraphs regarding man's conscience (bolding is mine). Apparently, the Church and I agree on the source of one's conscience and the primacy of conscience in one's acts. Amazing, isn't it?

1776 "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment.... For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God.... His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."


1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."

Jesus DID give a set of teachings to His Apostles, this is what is understood as "Apostolic Tradition"

Funny that those teachings are not found in the Gospels, nor to any great extent in Acts or the Epistles. The teachings of Jesus were very few, and very concise. We have succeeded in adding an immense number of teachings to them, as well as muddling up the ones he actually gave us.

 

[Rhamiel]

Funny that those teachings are not found in the Gospels, nor to any great extent in Acts or the Epistles. The teachings of Jesus were very few, and very concise. We have succeeded in adding an immense number of teachings to them, as well as muddling up the ones he actually gave us

why would you expect all the teachings to be found in the Gospels and Acts?
those are accounts of the life of Christ, not an extensive encyclopedia and legal code

the Bible is for the edification of the Church, it is not the totality of divine revelation to His Church

your world view also seems to leave out that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, that teachings have been muddled rather then clarified over time
though if you prefer an anachronistic faith, you can live as the Early Church lived with its strict penances and fasting and very firm teachings

 

[Martinius]

why would you expect all the teachings to be found in the Gospels and Acts?
those are accounts of the life of Christ, not an extensive encyclopedia and legal code

the Bible is for the edification of the Church, it is not the totality of divine revelation to His Church

your world view also seems to leave out that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, that teachings have been muddled rather then clarified over time
though if you prefer an anachronistic faith, you can live as the Early Church lived with its strict penances and fasting and very firm teachings

So from where did the "extensive encyclopedia and legal code" come (I hadn't yet mentioned the massive Code of Canon Law, which governs the Church--but not totally, since the Church's leaders must continuously explain and interpret that law)? I accept that the Church, as well as every person, is guided by the Holy Spirit, or at least should be. I find it difficult to believe that the Holy Spirit is sending us all these doctrines and laws, little by little, over many centuries. If the Bible is for the edification of the Church, the Church appears not to have taken that edification to heart, but has instead decided to pile a whole bunch of stuff on top of what Jesus and the Bible gives us. I only understand that situation if we see the Church as a human institution which, like all growing and complex institutions, creates rules and regulations to manage itself. But Jesus had none of that, and he accomplished a whole lot with a cadre of mostly uneducated disciples, no real hierarchy, and little to follow except what he preached, did and taught about the Kingdom of God.

 

[Davidnic]

But conscience must be properly formed and part of that is in line with the dogmas of the Church that reflect the Truth that is the Person of Christ in relation to things like Image of God and what flows from it. So though a conscience is supreme it is only supreme when correct and in union with the Truth and conformed to it and that means not relativistic or subjective in Truth.

The Church has not changed over centuries or added things little by little as you say. At least not in relation to de fide concepts. Our understanding of Dogma has developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But the core has not changed in relation to things that were de fide. There is a legitimate development of Dogma and a heretical one. The Church develops legitimately with the Holy Spirit guiding, but this never changes the core of something that can not be changed.

There is in addition to the Bible, Tradition that is handed down. This can not be ignored or seen as piled on top of Scripture as if Scripture stands alone. Indeed for the first part of the Church it was not the Bible that guided but the same Tradition that even now informs the Churches with Apostolic succession. If not for that, there would be no Scripture put together with the assurance of validity. So while the Bible informs the Church it is only one part, and we can not use it to exclude the other.

 

[Martinius]

But conscience must be properly formed and part of that is in line with the dogmas of the Church that reflect the Truth that is the Person of Christ in relation to things like Image of God and what flows from it. So though a conscience is supreme it is only supreme when correct and in union with the Truth and conformed to it and that means not relativistic or subjective in Truth.

The Church has not changed over centuries or added things little by little as you say. At least not in relation to de fide concepts. Our understanding of Dogma has developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But the core has not changed in relation to things that were de fide. There is a legitimate development of Dogma and a heretical one. The Church develops legitimately with the Holy Spirit guiding, but this never changes the core of something that can not be changed.

There is in addition to the Bible, Tradition that is handed down. This can not be ignored or seen as piled on top of Scripture as if Scripture stands alone. Indeed for the first part of the Church it was not the Bible that guided but the same Tradition that even now informs the Churches with Apostolic succession. If not for that, there would be no Scripture put together with the assurance of validity. So while the Bible informs the Church it is only one part, and we can not use it to exclude the other.

I understand and appreciate what you are saying, David, but from the trenches it looks like a lot has changed or developed, even in my lifetime. Perhaps not dogmas but much of everything else. The Church of today is much different from the Church of my youth, which a group of us senior Catholics were recently reminiscing about.

Regarding conscience, how do we determine what a "properly formed" conscience is, and who determines it? In the days of the conquistadores, some priests and bishops bucked the Church and decried its treatment of indigenous peoples. Would they have been accused of not having a "properly formed" conscience in the view of the Church? We have to be careful in assuming that the Church has always been on the "right" side on every ethical issue, so it is appropriate they emphasize the individual conscience in the Catechism.

 

[pdudgeon]

Well, not quite. Jesus wanted us "to believe in" him, not hold certain beliefs. You have the right idea, but are mixing up the words and what they mean. If I say I believe in you, it does not mean I think you exist. It means I am placing my faith, trust, and/or confidence in you. That's what Jesus was looking for, something that we call faith. He didn't hand out a list of doctrines that people had to accept to be his disciples.

right--believe is a heart action while belief is a head (thinking) action.

 

[pdudgeon]

So from where did the "extensive encyclopedia and legal code" come (I hadn't yet mentioned the massive Code of Canon Law, which governs the Church--but not totally, since the Church's leaders must continuously explain and interpret that law)? I accept that the Church, as well as every person, is guided by the Holy Spirit, or at least should be. I find it difficult to believe that the Holy Spirit is sending us all these doctrines and laws, little by little, over many centuries. If the Bible is for the edification of the Church, the Church appears not to have taken that edification to heart, but has instead decided to pile a whole bunch of stuff on top of what Jesus and the Bible gives us. I only understand that situation if we see the Church as a human institution which, like all growing and complex institutions, creates rules and regulations to manage itself. But Jesus had none of that, and he accomplished a whole lot with a cadre of mostly uneducated disciples, no real hierarchy, and little to follow except what he preached, did and taught about the Kingdom of God.

in all of that ^^ you're forgetting two things;
1. Jesus was and is the Son of God.
2. The Church is not a human institution.
basically you need to review sections 737,738, and 739 as well as article 9 "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church" in the Catechism.

 

[Fantine]

The idea of a "properly formed conscience," as described by you, David, reminds me of the SNL "Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger" skits.

People visited Belushi's restaurant and no matter what they ordered to eat or drink, Belushi would say, "Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger, Pepsi, Pepsi, Pepsi."

The idea that they had choice was an illusion.

I think it's possible for Catholics to have well-formed consciences without living on cheeseburgers and Pepsi's and nothing else.

 

[Rhamiel]

The idea of a "properly formed conscience," as described by you, David, reminds me of the SNL "Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger" skits.

People visited Belushi's restaurant and no matter what they ordered to eat or drink, Belushi would say, "Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger, Pepsi, Pepsi, Pepsi."

The idea that they had choice was an illusion.

I think it's possible for Catholics to have well-formed consciences without living on cheeseburgers and Pepsi's and nothing else.

is it possible for people to have a well formed understanding of math and not know that 2 + 2 = 4?

truth is not equal to error

I just do not know how to explain it any better

 

[AvilaSurfer]

The idea of a "properly formed conscience," as described by you, David, reminds me of the SNL "Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger" skits.

People visited Belushi's restaurant and no matter what they ordered to eat or drink, Belushi would say, "Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger, Pepsi, Pepsi, Pepsi."

The idea that they had choice was an illusion.

I think it's possible for Catholics to have well-formed consciences without living on cheeseburgers and Pepsi's and nothing else.

So you expect people to be able to change the Church because they don't like cheeseburgers?