Do teachings need to be followed?

[Dranu]

“Why are we expected to stand from the kiss of peace until the reposition of the blessed sacrament?”
“Why do we see purple vestments during Lent and Advent?”
“Why must we fast?”
“Why are there almost no married priests in the Roman Rite?”

It is my understanding that these are all disciplines (with minor exceptions to fasting), not doctrines, and those can be doubted to my understanding, though we should not rebel, and rather trust the Church before our own falliable minds.
I’m talking about doctrine though, and I am pretty sure that they must ALL be held by the faithfull. This would be a major blow to my understanding and faith of the Church if I am wrong on this, but I suppose I am not infalliable .

 

[Aramis]

It is my understanding that these are all disciplines (with minor exceptions to fasting), not doctrines, and those can be doubted to my understanding, though we should not rebel, and rather trust the Church before our own falliable minds.
I’m talking about doctrine though, and I am pretty sure that they must ALL be held by the faithfull. This would be a major blow to my understanding and faith of the Church if I am wrong on this, but I suppose I am not infalliable .

See canon 752. You don’t have to believe, merely behave, for most of the teachings.

 

[Dranu]

“Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required,** a religious submission of intellect and will **is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”

Taken from intratext.com/X/ENG0017.htm, I added bold.

It seems to say that you must accept it as true and squash all thoughts which come into your head against it. In other words willfully doubting it is a sin. Perhaps my definition of assent of faith is weird or something?

Since this is doctrine (right?), for them to say you can believe whatever (like it could be wrong, which they certainly do not say), would be like arguing logic doesn’t exist, with logic.

 

[Aramis]

“Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required,** a religious submission of intellect and will **is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”

Taken from intratext.com/X/ENG0017.htm, I added bold.

It seems to say that you must accept it as true and squash all thoughts which come into your head against it. In other words willfully doubting it is a sin. Perhaps my definition of assent of faith is weird or something?

Since this is doctrine (right?), for them to say you can believe whatever (like it could be wrong, which they certainly do not say), would be like arguing logic doesn’t exist, with logic.

It says, to me, a layman, that I must assent of intellect and will; in short, obey it (will) and not teach nor preach (intellect), but I need not hold it as faith (ie, believe it).

Much the same way, as a school district employee, I am required to teach both literal creationism, and also big-bang/evolution; I am required to believe neither (I’m actually a big-bang/Evolution/divine interventionist. Not quite to Intelligent design… just that I believe that at some point, God added souls to hominids. Perhaps even a mere 7000 years ago, perhaps millions.) I am not, however, permitted to teach Divine intervention, nor Intelligent design.

 

[Dranu]

But wouldn’t using the mind to doubt it, not be full submission of the intellect. Faith is something else, like actually having faith in it (something given, not somethign you can actually do yourself, right?). To me it still seems pretty clear that willfull doubt in it is wrong. You can still not have faith, while at the same time not indulging in any thoughts of doubt on it. One can believe something without having faith in it, right (like saying it must be true, I just lack faith)? Anyone else have any thoughts or information on this?

 

[Greg27]

Personally I think a better approach if a member of the faithful has a ‘difficulty’ with some teaching of the CC is to encourage them to intellectually explore the faith from a broader perspective to understand the basis of that teaching, rather than threatening them with mortal sin if they disagree. In my own journey in Catholicism, if I’ve had a doubt of some kind, it has usually been resolved by researching the source of the teaching at a deeper level, such as in great theologians like Hans urs Von Balthasar, Rahner or others. I do not see an adherence to the Church’s teaching and free and critical theological and philosophical inquiry as incompatible, and I would say if someone has an issue with some teaching, then careful instruction is a better solution than threatening them on pain of mortal sin to not give automatic intellectual assent to a teaching.

 

[fix]

Personally I think a better approach if a member of the faithful has a ‘difficulty’ with some teaching of the CC is to encourage them to intellectually explore the faith from a broader perspective to understand the basis of that teaching, rather than threatening them with mortal sin if they disagree. In my own journey in Catholicism, if I’ve had a doubt of some kind, it has usually been resolved by researching the source of the teaching at a deeper level, such as in great theologians like Hans urs Von Balthasar, Rahner or others. I do not see an adherence to the Church’s teaching and free and critical theological and philosophical inquiry as incompatible, and I would say if someone has an issue with some teaching, then careful instruction is a better solution than threatening them on pain of mortal sin to not give automatic intellectual assent to a teaching.

The problem is if we accept only when we agree or claim a full understanding we may be denying that Christ is the authority behind His Church. I think it is better to accept first, then seek a fuller understanding.

Either Christ speaks through His magisterium or He does not.

 

[buffalo]

I’ve been told that the Catholic Church has its dogmas and its teachings. The few dogmas of the Church are non-negotiable and must be adhered to. The remainder of the Church’s instructions are merely teachings, though, and are open to debate and change. These teachings should be considered as guidelines for living and it’s up to each individual to decide for themselves if they are to be followed or not. Is this the proper way to think about the teachings of the Church?

One must have a properly formed conscience not one of convenience.

 

[Greg27]

The problem is if we accept only when we agree or claim a full understanding we may be denying that Christ is the authority behind His Church. I think it is better to accept first, then seek a fuller understanding.

Either Christ speaks through His magisterium or He does not.

I would agree with this approach. However, I feel assent to the will is compatible with seeking deeper understanding, even if seeking understanding may mean considering the same position from alternative points of view, without necessarily rejecting a dogma or doctrine. I believe it would be a mistake to claim such an approach brings danger of mortal sin.

 

[buffalo]

I would agree with this approach. My concern is that assent of will should not mean a shutting down of one’s intellectual curiosity on pain of mortal sin, as some earlier posts seemed to suggest.

In fact Jesus encourages us to use our intellect to find faith. Each can enlighten the other.