Starting this thread as it was a discussion on another thread… and we didn’t want to get it derailed.
I don’t disagree with anything the Church declares as infallible dogma, but I disagree with the Church’s current stance on gay priests.
Not being exactly sure what they all are, I couldn’t say. None that I know of.:shrug:
Not being able to eat strangled meat sacrificed to idols. I just hate to see a tenderloin go to waste.
I don’t disagree with any doctrine nor dogma. I do disagree with other things inside the Church like altar girls and reception on the hand.
Universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.
Hope you and Pie are well
Although it’s not dogma, the title to our lady as “co-redemptrix” really grinds my gears. It is the historical truth that the CC was built on that Christ is our redeemer. More importantly, the council of Trent infallibly declared:
“Christ alone is our redeemer. Should anyone teach or maintain differently let him be anathema.”
It’s just another one of those teachings that give fundamentalists a handle on attacking us.
I must admit that title also makes me uncomfortable…I have heard people try to explain what they say it means…I love our Blessed Mother …but…it’s just that one title… “co-redemptrix”…
My greatest difficulties are:
- Clericalism, particularly as expressed in the teaching that only men can be priests. (This is an expression of clericalism because it rests on the idea that the ministerial priesthood is something qualitatively other than the baptismal priesthood–otherwise no baptized person would be an “invalid subject” for ordination.)
- The juridical and imperial elements in the way papal authority has been expressed, specifically the claims of “plenitudo potestatis” and “universal ordinary jurisdiction.”
- The formulation of “negative doctrines” about other churches, which seem like unnecessary and even presumptuous extrapolations from the positive claims which are the proper content of divine revelation. I.e., to say that “Eucharists not celebrated by a priest ordained by a bishop in apostolic succession are invalid” is true in the positive form “we may be confident that Eucharists celebrated by such priests are valid.” There is no need that I can see to make confident claims about what does not happen in other Eucharists.
- The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, particularly in partu, which seems to reflect an over-spiritualized, even Gnostic understanding of the Incarnation, as well as a belief that sex is polluting.
- The tendency, from my perspective, to over-define things and insist on these highly defined beliefs as necessary for Christian unity.
Note that these are difficulties, not “disagreements”–it is not my intention to dissent stubbornly from anything authoritatively taught by the Church.
None. Being Catholic means supporting all Church teachings, not just the ones I like.
This is not a teaching of the Church
Jesus and His Church, the Catholic Church are One and the Same. So I don’t disagree with any of the teachings of Jesus.
- Political correctness is very rampant. If you’re in an ordinary group, like a parish Bible study, you have to be very careful not to scandalize anybody by bringing up something from another faith, although this is allowed.
- I’ve stated many times, that I don’t like it when private revelation is inflated to general revelation. E.G. the writings of St. Faustina seem to have been promoted beyond piety to almost the level of general revelation. This is evident MOST when these are used for the basis of homilies. Wasn’t the “canon” of scripture supposed to do that, define what was acceptable for liturgical use?
- Related to #2 is the massive attention paid in the Church to private revelations, such as the apparitions at Lourdes and Fatima and Guadalupe. Technically, these are not matters of faith and we do not have to accept them personally or believe in them. This is the “approved” syndrome, undoubtedly motivated by the desire for attracting pilgrims and sells statues, souvenirs, etc.
- I don’t like calling Jesuits “Jejzjhuits”. Where did this come from?
- I don’t like when people talk about “good” Catholics. “OH, she’s a good Catholic.”
- I don’t like the Blessed Virgin with all the observances on the liturgical calendar.
- I don’t like a mandatory feast on January 1. When I was young, it was “the feast of the circumcision.” After the council, this became too graphic and it was called something else, finally resting on the feast of the Holy Family. It’s a holy day searching for a purpose. Attendance is way down, anyway, so why do the bishops insist on this, especially when we’ve had two extra holy days in December, already.
- Jews celebrate feasts which seem too mundane for Catholics, like Rosh Hoshanna, the anniversary of the creation of the world; or, Simchat Torah, a celebration of God revealing the Torah to his chosen people. I think there’s way more feasts of Mary on the liturgical calendar than of Jesus.
Not a doctrine, but scrapping the Index of Forbidden Books was a pretty silly thing to do.
I kinda agree, but I think many today would just use the forbidden book list as a reading list.
Another non-doctrinal, but rather a canonical thing is the inability to formally leave the Church. I understand why Pope Benedict struck that canon, but if someone rejects the authority of the Church then why keep them bound to ecclesiastical law? I doubt that people that want to leave care if they formally declare themselves in schism. For many it might actually make them feel elated. They are likely breaking divine law also, from which none of us can “opt out”, but it woud be a mercy to release them from merely ecclesiastical discipline.
Hmmm… you only asked for one, but others have gotten away with many more than that.
If I’m allowed two more: perpetual virginity and transubstantiation.
Good point. However, I still think that with the amount of ignorance and poor catechesis that still exist in many Catholic communities (especially in countries with little Catholic tradition in a historical sense), such a list would be useful not so much as “OH NOES CENSORSHIP!”, but as a warning to the poorly informed. (And yes, I still count myself in the latter category. :))
You know, as a Protestant, “Co-redemptrix” doesn’t seem so bad because all it is just saying is that Mary did the will of God by saying “yes”, right?
Disagree is a strong word, but there are a number that have always caused me difficulty on an intellectual level. Papal infallibility is top of the list, and this is not helped when Pope Francis makes statement that are often not entirely clear (I’ve tried to phrase that as charitably as possible and I think most people will know what I mean.)
As others have said, the amount of negative comments made about other churches being only “ecclesial communities” and “not having valid sacraments” strikes me as a sort of theological elitism and makes me very uncomfortable. I think it is one of the biggest obstacles to any sort of Christian unity and needs to be overcome.
Some of the more questionable and hyperbolic teachings about Mary, including the title of “co-redemptrix” and in particular a lot of the language used by Simon De Montfort, the idea of “total consecration” and the language of being a “slave to Mary” all seems to cross the line of devotion and approach worship and deification.
A general excess of legalism.