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

[Davidnic]

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.

God's cheeseburgers and Pepsi or a buffet of our own making? There are other options than the food God offers but those options are not really nutrition but rather a kind of mental gluttony that we justify.

There is Variety in the Truth and room for expression. We can focus on things that speak to us and bring us closer to God but we don't do that at the expense of ignoring or attacking other things because the truth of those things is inconvenient.

There is room and freedom, there just isn't room for total relativism and making God in our image.

The thing is and this is something that isn't ever going to change is that the Church has the Truth divinely revealed by Christ through the apostles in Holy Tradition and Scripture.

Our knowledge of that Truth can deppen but the core Truth can never be changed.

Free will is the freedom to do as we ought to do not to do whatever we want. For some they're going to say that means it's not a choice. But we do have the choice to reject the Truth and create "truth" of our own making. It just comes with a consequence.

We don't get to make the menu at this restaurant. We either follow the One who set the menu or follow along the path of the one who tried to make his own.

That's the choice.

Some want to tell God Your food isn't good enough for me and justify it by pretending the manager changed the menu from what the owner wanted and substitute their own menu thinking they know better.

 

[Davidnic]

I mean did God reveal the Truth in Tradition and Scripture to the apostles in a revelation that ended with the death of the last Apostle or didn't He?

Mention of conscience in the catechism is not license to reject Dogma it's defined as unchangeable.

And the Church is clear on that in Her Exposition on that matter concerning the fundamental truths of the faith that must be accepted.

 

[Martinius]

I mean did God reveal the Truth in Tradition and Scripture to the apostles in a revelation that ended with the death of the last Apostle or didn't He?

That's a good question, for which an answer has been given by the Church. But I have always wondered why God's revelation would have stopped with the death of the last Apostle? Who decided that, and why? Was that done to prevent people from claiming new revelations later on? Did God announce at some point in time "No more revelations"? I don't think so. And why would God deny us needed revelation? Does the Church control what and when God can say or do something? It all seems strange to me.

Perhaps I am confusing revelation with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but since there is but one God, what is the difference between them? It seems more like creating two words and definitions to describe essentially the same thing.

This is just one of the many areas where the Church confuses us, rather than guides and enlightens us.

 

[Davidnic]

I think you're right in your comment that you're confusing Revelation and guidance from the Holy Spirit. Revelation ended but we can grow into a greater understanding of it but that doesn't change the core Truth.

And it is not yhe church that confuses us but the way the church gets explained half the time. There are so many misunderstandings of what is and isn't Dogma. What must always be believed and want we can have various opinions on.

 

[Martinius]

I think you're right in your comment that you're confusing Revelation and guidance from the Holy Spirit. Revelation ended but we can grow into a greater understanding of it but that doesn't change the core Truth.

And it is not the church that confuses us but the way the church gets explained half the time. There are so many misunderstandings of what is and isn't Dogma. What must always be believed and what we can have various opinions on.

So why is that? My feeling is that the Church has made very complex something that should be fairly simple, and has had 2000 years to pile dogmas, doctrines and rules on top of what Jesus actually gave us.

And if I am confusing revelation with guidance from the Holy Spirit just what is the difference? How does one end and the other continue?

 

[Davidnic]

Well Jesus did give us the dogmas. They were not piled on. Scripture even mentions they exist.

The difference between revelation and the guidance of the Spirit is...and I can go into more of this tomorrow... Revelation was new information the Holy Spirit is involved in that too but the guidance of the Holy Spirit helps us understand how to implement Revelation into our lives. But the spirit does not change what has already been revealed.

The problem here is you seem to see the dogmas as additions but they are not; they are the foundations of what Christ taught.

For instance there are dogmas based firmly in the teaching of the image of God being in man. These are not additions to Christs teaching but what He told the apostles in their time together.

The gospels are short but day in and day out for 3 years Christ taught the 12. Around the fire at night and breakfast in the morning and in the day they discussed the truth of who He was. Things they would not understand until the spirit descended at Pentecost. Scripture is clear that there is more to what Christ taught than is included in Scripture.

So a big part of the problem here is that you seem to see the dogmas as unecessary conditions and complications to the simple gospel truth. But in reality they are the necessary second pillar of divine revelation. And without them the word may be simpler but it is incomplete

 

[Martinius]

The dogma you mention, David, came from way before Jesus, and is a foundation of Judeo-Christian theology. But many of the dogmas that "came from the Apostles" took a while to make themselves known. Like 300 years or more. It really appears that the Church was not much concerned with dogma and doctrine until it became institutionalized and more unified.

I don't mean that all dogma is unnecessary, and I included doctrines and rules in the mix. What I am saying, and have said in the past, is that our emphasis on all of that detracts from what we should be getting from the Gospels, and what we should be doing to be true disciples of Jesus. Many Christians, especially we Catholics, see obeying the laws and rules, and accepting a long list of doctrines (which many are ignorant about, or don't understand), as more important than following Jesus in our words and actions.

There are some, like Pope Francis, that clearly get that. He will not throw out dogmas or doctrines, but he does emphasize what it means to be true disciples. That is what I try to do as well.

 

[Davidnic]

A lot of times dogmas were only really brought up when people challenged them. They were important before three hundred years in... it's just at that point you had a really big upsurge in heresy.

And although the image of God was mentioned thousands of years before Christ; its fullness was not really fully understood until Christ.

But dogmas complement and enhance living a christ-like life. The problem is many do not execute them that way.

 

[pdudgeon]

So why is that? My feeling is that the Church has made very complex something that should be fairly simple, and has had 2000 years to pile dogmas, doctrines and rules on top of what Jesus actually gave us.

And if I am confusing revelation with guidance from the Holy Spirit just what is the difference? How does one end and the other continue?

John 16:12-15 might be of help here.

 

[Martinius]

A lot of times dogmas were only really brought up when people challenged them. They were important before three hundred years in... it's just at that point you had a really big upsurge in heresy.

And although the image of God was mentioned thousands of years before Christ; its fullness was not really fully understood until Christ.

But dogmas complement and enhance living a christ-like life. The problem is many do not execute them that way.

Was there really an "upsurge in heresy" or was it that it did not come to the forefront until a certain time when local and regional differences became an issue for a church seeking unity? The dogmas were created in response to differences in beliefs and practices. Which side was heretical had to be decided, and those decisions did not come quickly or easily. They were often forced by religious and/or secular authorities.

Something else I have said before is that if we were able to visit the first Apostles and show them all the doctrines and dogmas we now have, as well as the general institutionalized nature of the Church, they would be confused by what we did to the Church and the faith they worked so hard to bring to fruition, and gave their lives for.

 

[Davidnic]

Dogmas were not created in response. Existing truths were defined with the Authority given by Christ and through the Holy Spirit.

For instance...is Mary ever virgin something that was created or a Truth that was defended? The Nature of the Trinity? The Incarnation? Christ...True God and True man?

These things were not artificial. They are revealed.

As far as the Apostles: This is the faith they gave their lives for. Would they recognize the Church in the modern world? I think they do and support it now, as they are in heaven. If we time traveled back and showed them...and showed them the Papacy was still in place, I believe they would indeed recognize what they were going to die for because they would know that Christ would not lie about His promise to be with the Church and that He had given the Church the assurance of the Papacy and the Magisterium. They would know that, no matter what the outward institution looked like...that She was still the Bride and that the revealed Dogmas were still protected. Since those dogmas were known to them, and had been revealed to them...they would not be confused. They would be saddened that the dogmas has to be defended so often. And what would confuse them would be how Gnosticism was still an issue, even in a different mask. And they would be truly dismayed at relativism and how it had made its way into the hearts of the faithful and by how much people have rejected both the care of the poor and the life of the unborn which are central to a Eucharistic life.

I think those two last things would shock them more than anything...that we call ourselves Christians and many reject the suffering and poor as inconveniences and others look at children also as an equation to be balanced and not a life to be cherished.

 

[football5680]

Something else I have said before is that if we were able to visit the first Apostles and show them all the doctrines and dogmas we now have, as well as the general institutionalized nature of the Church, they would be confused by what we did to the Church and the faith they worked so hard to bring to fruition, and gave their lives for.

I doubt it. They would accept all the Church's doctrines and Dogmas because they are the truth. They also sought unity in the Church and Saint Paul did not hesitate to call out individuals and churches who were doing something wrong which is the same function of the Church today. The apostles did not have to deal with as many heresies in their lifetime as have occurred over the 2000 years since which made it necessary to codify what the truth is.

So yes, if we first sat down with the apostles they may not understand because what has been codified was common knowledge accepted by all without dispute, but a short explanation of our history would make it easy to understand.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The Holy Spirit was given to the Church for guidance so that the Church remembers what Jesus had taught to the Apostles.

 

[Martinius]

For instance...is Mary ever virgin something that was created or a Truth that was defended? The Nature of the Trinity? The Incarnation? Christ...True God and True man?

David, you are one of my favorite people here and do an excellent job of explaining and defending the Catholic faith. I know you are a very busy guy with a family so I don't want to belabor this. So I will make this one last post on this thread. Each of the items you mentioned as quoted above are doctrines/beliefs that did develop in the early Church. It took several centuries to clarify the nature of the Trinity. The same with the Incarnation and the two natures of Christ. The "ever virgin" tag on Mary was also placed there, and as you know it was not mentioned in the New Testament books, beyond what was included in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. There was little said about Mary for a long time, since logically it wouldn't have mattered much if Christ was returning soon and the world was ending. The cult of Mary (and I use the term as the Church has used it over the centuries, not as a pejorative) developed and reached its peak well after New Testament times. If these and other truths were given to the Apostles by Jesus, they took a long time to germinate into dogmas and doctrines. As you certainly know, some of them are still being discussed by Catholic theologians today.

I doubt it. They would accept all the Church's doctrines and Dogmas because they are the truth. They also sought unity in the Church and Saint Paul did not hesitate to call out individuals and churches who were doing something wrong which is the same function of the Church today.

What was the unity that Paul and others sought? It does not seem to be heavily tied to doctrines, but more about behaviors and a focus on God the Father through Jesus. At least that is what is apparent from many of Paul's letters. One problem we have is to assume that the first Apostles would understand the Church as we understand it, and that they would know and agree with all the doctrines and dogmas we currently have. I have the feeling they would question the necessity for much of it, and the emphasis on some doctrines over the core teachings of Jesus would be a puzzle to them. They would also be shocked at all the people who call themselves Christian yet have no real knowledge of Christ, little knowledge of scripture (including the Gospels), and who flaunt the teachings of the very person, Jesus, they claim to emulate, as well as the Commandments of God from which they are derived.

As I said at the beginning of this post, I have given my thoughts on the topic of this thread, so will respectfully exit. Thanks for allowing me to participate in this discussion and for all your polite and thoughtful responses to my somewhat edgy posts.

 

[pdudgeon]

The last sentence of the linked article had this:

"The unity of the faith requires unity of belief, and unity of belief requires clarity."

I agree with the last part regarding clarity, which is not a real strong point in the Church. But "requiring unity of belief" is impossible, as no one can command belief nor control what others believe. The Church insists on "unity of belief" but it didn't occur in the first years nor has it since.

the important thing to recognize here is that the unity required is to recognize Jesus as Lord and Savior.

that did happen for the Apostles, and that is what we will have in heaven.
But between those two times we have satan to deal with,
and he is the one who is fighting (and always has been fighting) against that unity.

So it's best to put things into perspective and realize where such influences are comming from.

 

[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.

where did it come from? from God.
have you read Leviticus lately? it's in the Bible that you accept is for the edification of the Church.
If God spoke then and took the time to give the laws and regulations to the Jews, why would you assume that He would not also do so for us?

You say that Jesus had none of that which is in direct contradiction to what Jesus Himself says, that He and the Father are one, and that He does what He sees His Father doing.

Certainly when He was here Jesus spent a good deal of time correcting the Jews and the teachers and Rabbis of His day. remember the phraise "You have heard it said...but I tell you?" not to mention the Sermon on the Mount, or the various teachings that happened during Holy Week.

today we still have quite a few uneducated followers in the church who need to be instructed in what it means to believe and to be Catholic. That's why we have the richness of hierachy, the Doctors of the Church, and all the bulls and writings.
Christ knew that we would need instruction in our time just as the apostles did in their time.
Look at the books the apostles themselves wrote to believers if you truly are looking for early examples of instruction. that is where the tradition of the bulls etc. comes from.

 

[thecolorsblend]

David, you are one of my favorite people here and do an excellent job of explaining and defending the Catholic faith. I know you are a very busy guy with a family so I don't want to belabor this. So I will make this one last post on this thread. Each of the items you mentioned as quoted above are doctrines/beliefs that did develop in the early Church. It took several centuries to clarify the nature of the Trinity. The same with the Incarnation and the two natures of Christ. The "ever virgin" tag on Mary was also placed there, and as you know it was not mentioned in the New Testament books, beyond what was included in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. There was little said about Mary for a long time, since logically it wouldn't have mattered much if Christ was returning soon and the world was ending. The cult of Mary (and I use the term as the Church has used it over the centuries, not as a pejorative) developed and reached its peak well after New Testament times.

I would dispute that, actually, but to rise above the weeds for a moment, you seem to start off your assumptions with the view that Sacred Scripture is sufficient unto itself and anything outsider of that represents some (likely unnecessary) expansion upon the core truth of scriptural teaching; a distraction even in the best of cases.

This attitude views with suspicion any idea or concept that isn't didactically expressed in Sacred Scripture... and perhaps even some that are so expressed.

Oddly enough, the Early Church keeps being mentioned here and they would've been puzzled by the notion of depending only upon Sacred Scripture for religious input and guidance. They looked to the scriptures, yes, but as often (and some would argue more often) they looked to the bishops for teaching and direction.

It's well and good, I suppose, to argue for a quasi-Sola Scriptura view in an age of nearly universal literacy (at least in the western world) but that belief is a lot harder to justify the farther back in history one goes.

Further, this attitude overlooks how similar the beliefs of the Early Church are to traditional Christianity in general and to the Catholic Church in particular.

today we still have quite a few uneducated followers in the church who need to be instructed in what it means to believe and to be Catholic. That's why we have the richness of hierachy, the Doctors of the Church, and all the bulls and writings.
Christ knew that we would need instruction in our time just as the apostles did in their time.
Look at the books the apostles themselves wrote to believers if you truly are looking for early examples of instruction. that is where the tradition of the bulls etc. comes from.

I'm not sure if this is the point you were going for or not but what I took from this post is that the Catholic Church can accommodate everybody no matter their level of intellect.

Assuming I've understood your point, I agree. In fact, to me this is an indication of the Church's truth. Brilliant people with sky-high IQ's can find a comfortable spiritual home in the Catholic Church with plenty to feed and nourish their intellects.

At the same time, people who are, forgive me, not the deepest wells on the farm also have a home in the Church. They hear the same homilies, they listen to the same readings and receive the same Sacraments as everyone else and the faith is right at their level too even though, to be polite, they're not exactly scholars.

The Catholic Church can accommodate anybody and everybody who is willing to submit to her authority, and I cherish that.

Again, not sure if that's what you had in mind but this is something that's been on my mind at least in recent times.

 

[pdudgeon]

I would dispute that, actually, but to rise above the weeds for a moment, you seem to start off your assumptions with the view that Sacred Scripture is sufficient unto itself and anything outsider of that represents some (likely unnecessary) expansion upon the core truth of scriptural teaching; a distraction even in the best of cases.

This attitude views with suspicion any idea or concept that isn't didactically expressed in Sacred Scripture... and perhaps even some that are so expressed.

Oddly enough, the Early Church keeps being mentioned here and they would've been puzzled by the notion of depending only upon Sacred Scripture for religious input and guidance. They looked to the scriptures, yes, but as often (and some would argue more often) they looked to the bishops for teaching and direction.

It's well and good, I suppose, to argue for a quasi-Sola Scriptura view in an age of nearly universal literacy (at least in the western world) but that belief is a lot harder to justify the farther back in history one goes.

Further, this attitude overlooks how similar the beliefs of the Early Church are to traditional Christianity in general and to the Catholic Church in particular.

I'm not sure if this is the point you were going for or not but what I took from this post is that the Catholic Church can accommodate everybody no matter their level of intellect.

Assuming I've understood your point, I agree. In fact, to me this is an indication of the Church's truth. Brilliant people with sky-high IQ's can find a comfortable spiritual home in the Catholic Church with plenty to feed and nourish their intellects.

At the same time, people who are, forgive me, not the deepest wells on the farm also have a home in the Church. They hear the same homilies, they listen to the same readings and receive the same Sacraments as everyone else and the faith is right at their level too even though, to be polite, they're not exactly scholars.

The Catholic Church can accommodate anybody and everybody who is willing to submit to her authority, and I cherish that.

Again, not sure if that's what you had in mind but this is something that's been on my mind at least in recent times.

marvelous response!
(and if i might add, also one of the very reaons why some of the larger churches have a vast treasure of paintings, sculpture, and other art work in them so that those who could not read would still have access to the holy scriptures and the stories therin.
they could literally see the Gospel story right before their eyes and follow it to the steps of the altar itself.
Today we still do that when following the Stations of the Cross.)

 

[fat wee robin]

We are all unique, aren't we? And living in peace with one another means respecting that we are all unique. It never occurs to me that people don't have different perceptions at church, and it only bothers me if others make an issue out of it.

We are after all talking about Ireland, home if artists and poets and free spirits of whom James Joyce wrote, "Catholicism means here comes everybody. "

A GOD who created untold galaxies we'd planet's probably enjoys diversity much more than we think

Ironic that you should mention the planets ,as someone who has studied ancient Indian astrology it is possible to know the laws, of God's universe .

Did anyone else notice that Anthony Murphy was not even a parishioner?

What did he ever contribute to St. Michael's parish? Was he in the choir attending practices and singing at Mass week after week? Was he putting donations in the collection plate? Was he offering his hand in friendship to the other parishioners?

No. He was a troublemaker and a busybody seeking to disrupt the parish and turn friend against friend, neighbor against neighbor.

And for those of you who condone this reprehensible behavior--I'm certainly glad you're not in my parish.

Wow , another Lost soul ,but then it was only a matter of time , as Taurus(end of May), is not known for it's clear spiritual wisdom as a rule . .

 

[fat wee robin]

Jesus, you have got to compromise on this marriage thing. I mean, one man and one woman? That's so Old Testament. It will never fly in Athy, Ireland in 2016. Do you want to turn people away or something?

Who says that because you go through the RCC , go to Mass every Sunday , follow all the rules ,that you are a true Christian ? For that you have to recieve the Gift of the Holy Spirit Internally , and it is clear that many who follow Rules, and Belong to the RCC, are not going for the correct reasons , but as habit ,out of fear ,liking rituals .