Some Catholics seem to think holding the beliefs of the official teaching of the Church is optional. In other words, if some happen to agree with the Church on Her teachings of faith and morals; that is, all definitive teaching, good for them. But there are others who don't. So, according to this view, it shouldn't matter, because they have all sorts of wonderful outward signs of their faith.
If right belief were not important, why be Catholic at all? Is the Church just an agency of social assistance, or just a social club? Holy Communion is supposed to be a union of mind and heart, not just a bunch who like hanging out together. If only a subset of beliefs is really important, what are those beliefs? Who determines what they should be? Clearly, only the Magisterium of the Church has the authority from Christ to make that determination.
Optional orthodoxy is a dangerous thing for the health of the Church. To quote Father Richard Neuhaus, "Wherever orthodoxy is optional today, it will eventually be proscribed." Think about it, and consider a secular example. Even a generation ago, no one would have dared question the definition of marriage as being only between a man and a woman. But today, we are on the brink of a change which sees that belief as optional. Once that happens, the day is not far off when holding the traditional view shall be completely unacceptable. How long will it be before the government enforces the new orthodoxy? It all starts with orthodoxy that is optional.
What type of Catholicism is it, where right belief is optional? If we do not share a common faith, and work toward evangelizing directly, first ourselves, then others, then the Protestants are right - we think we are saved by good works. And what is the content of our evangelization, if not the Deposit of Faith, entrusted to the Magisterium? This includes all of Scripture as well as the Tradition of the Church over the centuries since Our Lord's founding of Her.
And how do we evangelize if we too have not been evangelized? We might say it is by good example, and that would be necessary, but not sufficient. We must speak to others about our faith, otherwise we are hiding our lamp under a bushel (Matt 5:15). Surely, we need not wait until we have a perfect faith before we can share it with others, yet it would be unthinkable to attempt to convert others to a faith we do not embrace ourselves.
Clearly, real people have different shades of understanding and acceptance of the fullness of Truth, but allow me to paint two extremes to make a point. If right belief is in place, good works must follow, or else it is not right belief. "But some man will say: You have faith, and I have works: show me your faith without works; and I will show you, by works, my faith." (James 2:18) But doing good works without right belief cannot be pleasing to God because such a person refuses to be converted in mind and heart. Repentance is the cornerstone of the Gospel message. "The time is accomplished, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel." (Mark 1:15)
One might argue that such a person must have some degree of right faith, but I would add that the person, by grace, must actively seek to grow in that belief. "And the apostles said to the Lord: Increase our faith." (Luke 17:5) When we cease efforts at personal conversion, and thus extinguish the desire to grow in our understanding and acceptance of the faith handed down from the Apostles and entrusted to the Church, regardless of our works, we are spiritually dead.
Therefore, orthodoxy cannot be optional.
Peace, Paul.
I appreciate the struggle for the truth and your earnest promotion of it. Many Catholics do not share your emphasis on the "orthodox," especially the sense that the intellect is the major guide or defining factor in determining one's Catholicity.
Additionally, and all too often, "orthodoxy" is ballooned to include matters beyond faith and morals. Ordaining women, for example. The reality is that the harder a central authority tries to align the underlings into obedience through mere fiat, the more eroded the authority becomes.
Prayer and liturgy have to come first. Thomas Aquinas came to this realization. He would be a good example to imitate.
For Todd,
I think you might be missing Mr. Rex's point. He is not saying that "the intellect is the major guide or defining factor in determining one's Catholicity," as if one need to understand or be able to explain all of the teachings of the Church, but rather that unless one affirmitively chooses to believe all of what the Church teaches, one is not really Catholic. Ignorance of Church teaching is one thing, but willful ignorance is something else. If one is serious about being a Christian, that is, if one wants Christ to live in him as opposed to Christ being a sort of accessory for him, the first question when deciding whether to do this or that is "what is the Church's teaching on the issue." Let us stipulate that if the heirarchy see's its authoritative role as one of power, rather than one of love, then its exercise of authority will not be very effective. However, this does not erode the authority. The Church was instituted by God and its heirarchy is accountable to Him--not to the laity as such. The question for the heirarchy is indeed "how can I serve those under my jursidiction" but it is so because the ultimate question is "how can I make sure that God's flock is protected from sin (including heresy)."
With regard to the many Catholics who are bored by orthodoxy, the problem is that they do not know what orthodoxy is. Orthodoxy is not merely right belief, it is also right glorification (doxa) of God. Proper belief and proper worship are conjoined. A Catholic who is bored with orthodoxy, that is a Catholic who does not believe that right belief matters, does not really love God, but rather an idol that more or less mimics God's energies. If one does not have right belief, one's worship (including one's works) are flawed. Similarly, if the Church does not glorify God properly in Liturgy (as it hasn't) Catholics will be led astray to adopt errors (as they have). Prayer and liturgy are not substitutes for right belief, they are the consequence and cause of right belief. If there is something flawed about either prayer or belief, both will suffer and continue to suffer until it is corrected.
Thanks for reading,
Han Ng
The only reason to be Catholic is because it is true. Not affinity towards the liturgy or architecture. The social work or the feeling of belonging.
Peace, all.
"The only reason to be Catholic is because it is true."
Is this "true" as in being "true to oneself?" I can think of a better reason: because it pleases God.
" ... unless one affirmitively chooses to believe all of what the Church teaches, one is not really Catholic."
Same thing as an intellect-driven choice. And if taken to a logical conclusion, only the sinless are truly Catholic. Unless of course, one is in the position of not equating belief with action (or praise of God). Either way presents the danger of not taking into account God's grace and God's election of believers into Christ's Body.
I think departure from Church teaching is a grave matter, but I don't see it as the final word on a person's Catholicity. The Church is far deeper a mystery than a human being making a mental choice about a list of beliefs.
"Is this 'true' as in being 'true to oneself?'"
Todd, I know that you cannot be advocating Relativism here, so you must be talking about the struggles one has in embracing Church teaching. As I have mentioned before, the will is not to be coerced, yet one may give religious assent while being in the process of working toward a fuller belief. Witholding that assent is a denial of that which the Church has proclaimed to be true.
"I can think of a better reason: because it pleases God."
If someone clings to a belief which is contrary to objective truth, it's hard to imagine God being pleased about that.
"And if taken to a logical conclusion, only the sinless are truly Catholic."
This follows only in eternity; not in this life. A Catholic can firmly believe all the Church teaches, and still live an imperfect life, being continually in need of repentance. Church teaching is an ideal we agree to work toward in this life. For most (living Saints excepted), the ideal achieved only in heaven.
"Unless of course, one is in the position of not equating belief with action (or praise of God)."
I surmised that this is where your difficulty lies. You are afraid to embrace truth that you cannot live up to in this life. But that's where we count on God's grace to work with our efforts at living the life of Christ.
"...the danger of not taking into account God's grace and God's election of believers into Christ's Body."
I hope this is not meant to be taken in a once-saved-always-saved context.
"The Church is far deeper a mystery than a human being making a mental choice about a list of beliefs."
Was the early Church wrong in formulating the Apostles' Creed, and using it as a statement of faith to which all Church members must adhere? Were that not done, there would be no faith to speak of today.
Yes, there is much more to being a Catholic than a list of beliefs, but the Church is right to set a minimum threshold of belief upon being Catholic. If not, then all we have is an experiential faith devoid of any intellectual foundation.
I think you would benefit from a re-read of Fides et Ratio; especially the section entitled "Reason before the mystery" (13-15). God bless your search for truth.
Peace, Paul.
Thank you for your reply.
I think my question about being "true to oneself" was more directed at how you defined "truth," rather than my approach to it.
" ... yet one may give religious assent while being in the process of working toward a fuller belief."
Yet I see the self-styled "orthodox" largely unwilling to grant this "working toward," as you put it. Do I give assent only by not publicly promoting the ordination of women, not attending such ordinations, not celebrating liturgy with such priests? Is my assent betrayed by my critique of the "gag order" or by the specific theological deficiencies of the argument, or even by the misapplication of "infallibility" in this case? Do I make the call or does someone else?
"If someone clings to a belief which is contrary to objective truth, it's hard to imagine God being pleased about that."
If we're talking a matter of faith, I agree. But it seems to me the "objective truth" has been expanded to include liturgical rubrics these days. Is God displeased when chalices get poured at the Agnus Dei? When lay people preach well? When a LifeTeen band plays music well, though it excludes plainsong? I wouldn't base my whole argument on the desire to avoid not-pleasing God, but at some point one detects we are straining at gnats and flies here.
"I surmised that this is where your difficulty lies. You are afraid to embrace truth that you cannot live up to in this life. But that's where we count on God's grace to work with our efforts at living the life of Christ."
A psychoanalytic stretch, perhaps. I certainly experience doubts about some of what is presented as the truth. I've never found that to be a drawback. Lived experience has reinforced what I've learned about the sacraments, for example. I'm as concerned about good liturgy as the CDWS is. I don't see their approach to liturgical governance is helpful on the parish level. It is unclear to me why one set of bishops in Rome would have a more valid approach than another set of bishops on the BCL. Aren't both groups in union with the pope? Aren't both groups possessing particular competence in liturgy? Does one group deal more directly with their flock and another live across an ocean?
"I hope this is not meant to be taken in a once-saved-always-saved context."
It's meant to be taken that salvation is by God's election, not by human assent to particular ideals.
"Was the early Church wrong in formulating the Apostles' Creed, and using it as a statement of faith to which all Church members must adhere? Were that not done, there would be no faith to speak of today."
I have no problem with any of the statements I ratify in the Creed at Mass. My problem is that some outside elements are elevated to that level. Are Catholics defined exclusively by their adherence to the Creed? Fine with me.
"I think you would benefit from a re-read of Fides et Ratio; especially the section entitled "Reason before the mystery" (13-15). God bless your search for truth."
Thank you for your blessing. My own disclaimer as a person of reason, is that the most schooled and intelligent people can be left high and dry by their intellect. But I do agree the ideal approach is neither exclusively experience (or more accurately, the emotional) nor intellect, nor action. A true follower of Christ should try to balance all of these as well as faith. If an individual is to emphasize any of these aspects, I think the wise choice would be to avoid one's preference or specialty, and concentrate on one's weakness. You challenge me to come full circle and return to my younger preference for reason. That may be a valid suggestion. Perhaps the "orthodox" should consider more fully the role their own emotions or actions express or enliven their faith and contribute to the faith of the Church.
"...how you define[d] 'truth'..."
I'll give you a minimal, rather than all-emcompassing, definition. At minimum, it is all the Pope's statements on faith or morals which are to be definitively held.
If you brew your own definition of truth that excludes this, I'm afraid you have descended into the quagmire of Relativism, where there are no words anyone can produce that you will heed.
"Do I make the call or does someone else?"
We've been over this before. The CDF is charged with the duty to make the final call. But if you plant your feet firmly against definitive Church teaching, let's just say you're planted on something other than the firm Rock of the Church.
"But it seems to me the 'objective truth' has been expanded to include liturgical rubrics these days."
Obviously, those who stretch truth that far have their energies misplaced. They probably do so, because liturgy is something outward, and we all want liturgy that is meaningful.
"It's meant to be taken that salvation is by God's election, not by human assent to particular ideals."
Salvation apart from freewill to conform ourselves to God's invitation. Interesting.
"My problem is that some outside elements are elevated to that level."
In the early Church, it was determined the Apostles' Creed encompassed the propositions that were under contention. That's not to say it was or is the sum total of the Church's belief. The Church in every age has the right and duty to defend the Truth under attack by making formal declarations on those teachings that are non-negotiable.
"A true follower of Christ should try to balance all of these as well as faith."
I have no problem with balance, when it includes all the Church teaches that must be definitively held. If your scale excludes that, you are tipping over.
"Perhaps the 'orthodox' should consider more fully the role their own emotions or actions express or enliven their faith and contribute to the faith of the Church."
Absolutely. The challenge for the orthodox is to put into practice that which they profess to believe. As well, the challenge for the heterodox is to believe that which they practice. Isn't the wondrous variety of the Body of Christ marvellous? The problem enters when we declare we have no further need to "concentrate on one's weakness."
Back when I was a college freshman, I found Catholic Answer's web site. I read a few of the tracts, until I came on the one about contraception. 19 years old, Cradle Catholic, 11 years of CCD/Youth Group - and this was the first time I had heard that the Catholic Church condemned the use of contraceptives.
I did not understand the "why's" at the time, but I accepted it. The Church is the defender of Truth, and has been endowed by Christ with infallibility (one of the charisms I have not been given).
How does this relate? Surrender is the key to orthodoxy. Intellectual assent alone is not enough, but it must be given. We must believe the Truth (which will set us free), and then we must act on that truth.
There are many in this world who will only believe, and not act. There are others who will not believe, but will act. True discipleship requires both.