90 % Catholic?

[Christy4Christ]

What if someone believes like nearly everything the Church teaches but has problems with certain things? Not issues of major importance but just other areas, namely teachings from the Catechism. Would this mean that they are not good Catholics or that they wouldn't be considered Catholic anymore?

 

[Cat59]

Could you give an example, Christy?

 

[Aaron-Aggie]

There is one truth and it is absolute.
If what the catholic church teaches it is that truth.

The effects on the soul I am not sure any of us can tell you.
But the Lord calls us to give him everthing that is us and return he gives himself.
For those haveing problems my suggestion is turn to the Holy Spirit and he will guide you

 

[Michelina]

What if someone believes like nearly everything the Church teaches but has problems with certain things? Not issues of major importance but just other areas, namely teachings from the Catechism. Would this mean that they are not good Catholics or that they wouldn't be considered Catholic anymore?

Great Question, Christy.

We all need to learn the Faith. It's a gradual process that begins with simple questions. Not understanding something complicated or spiritual leads us to study and learn from others.

What makes us Christians is our relationship with Jesus.

What makes us Catholic Christians is our trust in Him who mercifully gave us a means to understand His Revelation and His will, i.e. the teaching authority of the Church. (I.e.: the Magister - ium; Magister means teacher in Latin.) As long as our heart is with the Church, we are free to ask those questions that help us to learn.

God sees our hearts and, ultimately, our limited understanding is not what's important. Our desire to learn His Truth, thru the Church He gave us for that purpose(among other purposes) pleases Him. That makes us 100% Catholic.

 

[MParedon]

Would this mean that they are not good Catholics or that they wouldn't be considered Catholic anymore?

I read an answer from a priest on another forum about a similar question. It basically said, once a Catholic always a Catholic, unless you renounce your faith. Like saying I am no longer Catholic, I am Lutheran, Buddhist, Agnostic, etc (not to say that any of those examples are supposed to be similar belief systems).
He also said that if you don't practice the faith then you would be a non-practicing Catholic. I would think if you don't believe everything, then you are a struggling, or probably partially disbelieving Catholic.

What helped me was once I learned and accepted the apostolic succession and apostles ability to bind and loose, then I agreed to abide by Catholic teaching no matter my feelings on the matter, because I believe this is Christ's church and he knows a whole bunch more on the matter than I do.

 

[Benedicta00]

What if someone believes like nearly everything the Church teaches but has problems with certain things? Not issues of major importance but just other areas, namely teachings from the Catechism. Would this mean that they are not good Catholics or that they wouldn't be considered Catholic anymore?

Tell you what. You are fallible and everything is subjective, right? So that means you could be wrong. The Church has the chrism to not err when passing on to us the faith that Jesus and the apostles taught. So I tend to give the Church the benefit of the doubt. So even if I do not understand or agree because I don’t understand, I accept it anyway. Always I have been blessed with understanding later on. Obedience first, then the grace to believe will come.

 

[ps139]

Always I have been blessed with understanding later on. Obedience first, then the grace to believe will come.

Yes, this is my method too, and it has not failed me yet. There are still areas I do not fully understand, but I trust that in due time I will, just like the things I understand now that at one point I did not understand.

 

[Benedicta00]

Yes, this is my method too, and it has not failed me yet. There are still areas I do not fully understand, but I trust that in due time I will, just like the things I understand now that at one point I did not understand.

It hasen't failed me either.

 

[Toney]

What if someone believes like nearly everything the Church teaches but has problems with certain things? Not issues of major importance but just other areas, namely teachings from the Catechism. Would this mean that they are not good Catholics or that they wouldn't be considered Catholic anymore?

I love this type of challenging thought. Christy, I noticed that you took the "Are you in the right denomination" test on another forum. I decided to do the same, except that on questions where I had a 1% doubt, or kept an open mind, I would punch the answer at slight odds with Catholic doctrine. The test told me I would make a wonderful Evangelical Lutheran, a really good 90% Catholic. Frankly, I don't really know how to be a good 90% of anything. It's this problem I have.

I spent years studying theology; lived in Medugorje for a long time trying to get a proper handle on Mariology, wrote an allegorical book on Mary as Mystical Rose, not at the Vatican teaches who she is (e.g., Fr. Rene Laurentine), but as Mary herself taught it to the visionaries in Medugorje.

Pilate also asked a good question: "What is truth?" As soon as we think we know the answer to that question, as soon as we think all truth is objective, I believe we become as a good many posters I have read in the last few days on CF: self-righteous, narrow-minded, hypocritical, smug and most un-Christlike in their thought, although they love Christ. N.B. This is an observation only: I have a log in my eye; don't fret over a speck in theirs.

Sometimes I wonder why the historical Jesus was just one of many dying-Gods; Mary just one of many virgins who birthed gods. I wonder if the ancients thought they had God figured out as much as we think we do.

 

[seebs]

I'm a bit curious. On the one hand, there's all the formal rules about what is or isn't infallible. For instance, Doctrine, I am told, could be repudiated in the future.

Certainly, the Church has occasionally promoted ideas which have later been found to be in error, and which the Church no longer promotes.

I guess I'd assume it matters a lot whether the disagreements are over dogma or doctrine.

 

[geocajun]

I'm a bit curious. On the one hand, there's all the formal rules about what is or isn't infallible. For instance, Doctrine, I am told, could be repudiated in the future.

not exactly - it can be futher defined in the future, which means that some folks understanding of what was said may prove to have been wrong.
This is known as 'development of doctrine'.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

Certainly, the Church has occasionally promoted ideas which have later been found to be in error, and which the Church no longer promotes.

can you give an example?

I guess I'd assume it matters a lot whether the disagreements are over dogma or doctrine.

only in that one can take less liberties in understanding it, when something has been defined as in dogma.

 

[Michelina]

I'm a bit curious. On the one hand, there's all the formal rules about what is or isn't infallible. For instance, Doctrine, I am told, could be repudiated in the future. Certainly, the Church has occasionally promoted ideas which have later been found to be in error, and which the Church no longer promotes.
I guess I'd assume it matters a lot whether the disagreements are over dogma or doctrine.

,

Some misunderstandings, seebs:

"Doctrine could be repudiated in the future."

Dogmas are explicitly defined Doctrines.

The Doctrines (teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium) are true, even though not solemnly defined.

The writings of theologians are not Doctrine, nor are many other sources.

The Church has occasionally promoted ideas which have later been found to be in error.

"Promoting ideas" is not formal Teaching. Neither are the 'common' opinions (sententia communis) of theologians. Limbo is an example of this.

I guess I'd assume it matters a lot whether the disagreements are over dogma or doctrine.

Dogma and Doctrine are both true, the former being solemnly defined.

What theologians and others write or say to explain Doctrines is merely human teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a reliable and authentic source of Doctrine. Pope JP, in the Apostolic Constitution endorsing the CCC, writes: "I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith"

 

[opus_dei]

Dogmas are explicitly defined Doctrines........The Doctrines (teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium) are true, even though not solemnly defined.

another thing to consider is the fact that doctrine, which can change over time, can directly refute previous doctrine. ex: the earth at the center of the solar system (doctrinal). yeah, it took them a bit to change it, but they did even though it was in direct opposition to previous statements.

dogma, more than just explicitly defined doctrines, can change, but they cannot contradict any fully revealed dogma from the past. ex: infallibility.

loosely defined, consider it a "hierarchy of truths" that i can discuss further if necessary.

 

[Michelina]

another thing to consider is the fact that doctrine, which can change over time, can directly refute previous doctrine.

OP, your terminology is confused.

The Magisterium does not teach astronomy or anything else other than theology.

The Church never taught this opnion (below) as Doctrine.

ex: the earth at the center of the solar system (doctrinal). yeah, it took them a bit to change it, but they did even though it was in direct opposition to previous statements.

Check these out, OP.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0138.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0033.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html

dogma, more than just explicitly defined doctrines, can change, but they cannot contradict any fully revealed dogma from the past. ex: infallibility.

'Change' and 'develop' are different terms. Doctrines develop; they don't change. A baby beomes a man. Is that change or development? In this context, it's development.

 

[seebs]

can you give an example?

There are some early writings on slavery and geocentrism which I do not believe are currently endorsed. At least some appear to have reached roughly the level of doctrine, although it's hard for me to be quite sure.

 

[Michelina]

At least some appear to have reached roughly the level of doctrine, although it's hard for me to be quite sure.

Dear seebs,

Before you can call it Doctrine (please notice I use a capital D), it must be a Magisterial teaching. There are some pastoral statements that are not Doctrine, which may seem like 'doctrine'. The latter are prudential in character. The faithful are required to comply with them in obedience to their pastors, who can be dead wrong on these things. Sometimes it takes a qualified theologian to distinguish between Magisterial and pastoral.

Popes Paul and John Paul made a lot of terrible episcopal appointments in the past 35 years. These were pastoral decisions. The teaching of these two Popes, however, is of the highest quality and is Magisterial even when not infallible.