S
steph03
Guest
In one discussion with one lady, she was a firm beleiver in Papal Infaillability but she did not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
chessnerd321
Guest
Again. It’s not the reason, but it’s a darn good one. I do not seem to agree with @alphonsus1 when it comes to what constitutes serious doubt and heresy, but I think I agree with him here.If you want to argue that “assent to doctrine” is “the reason to be Catholic in the first place” I would love to hear it
Church authority is what allows Catholicism to be a functional whole. Authority is glaringly obviously missing from Protestant communities. Understanding the historical claims of the church and appreciating the need for an infallible teaching body was the turning point in my conversion.
The truth and beauty of the church’s teaching and being able to receive her sacraments are in my mind tied for the reasons to be a Catholic. You both seem to want to zero in on one or the other.
Last edited:
C
chessnerd321
Guest
I can’t really tell exactly what you’re saying. You’re saying that any doubt whatsoever in regards to infallible church teaching is grave matter and potentially mortal sin?So be safe and throw off doubt instantly!
I have the following problem with how many blanket statements you’re making: Doubt is a natural and essential step in learning anything new. The church absolutely does not ask us to accept what she teaches without skepticism and taking a rational look at things.
I fear the way you talk makes us sound like some cult. Where anything and everything the church says must be immediately and unquestioningly assented to or you’re in peril of hell.
D
Dovekin
Guest
There is a basic ecclesiological problem in the way you are expressing this. Dominus Iesus 17 says of the Orthodox that “the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy…” The choice to be with Christ is the reason to belong to the Church, whether it is as a Catholic or as an Orthodox believer. The one Church of Christ is present in both, though we believe it is present in a special way in the Catholic Church.I am the way and the truth and the life.
John 14:6
When you narrow the choice to Catholic vs Orthodox, you are starting to treat the Catholic Church as one denomination among many rather than as the Church of Christ that subsists in the Catholic Church. You mistake the reason to belong in the denomination for the reason to belong in the Church.
Some people might belong to the Church because they want to assent to true teaching which they can find there. Most want to belong to the Church because Christ is present, the Holy Spirit guides us. They may experience that in the beauty of what is taught, but it is the Spirit, not the specifics of the teaching, that attracts.
Idk. I just do not know many, or any, who choose to be Catholic in order to assent to what the Pope teaches. Most do belong because family, ritual or community is the way they come to know God. They assent to Papal teaching because of that experience, not the other way around.
D
Dovekin
Guest
I would not say they are tied, but both are present. I zero in on one because alphonse is being so insistent on the other.The truth and beauty of the church’s teaching and being able to receive her sacraments are in my mind tied for the reasons to be a Catholic. You both seem to want to zero in on one or the other.
A
alphonsus1
Guest
You keep creating an argument I never made. I never said that the Pope’s authority to teach on Faith and Morals was the ONLY reason to be Catholic. I said it was ONE among many reasons to be Catholic.
Then, you make a meaningless distinction:
You said I mistake the “reason to belong in the denomination for the reason to belong in the Church” as if the Catholic Church was not the One Universal and True Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Let me repeat that. Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation! Please process that and tell me that is not a “reason” to join the Catholic Church?
The Council of Florence, an ecumenical council, for which there can be no disagreement since it is infallible, will clear up the confusion:
“[The holy Roman church] firmly believes, professes, and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church (Session 11 — Feb. 4, 1442).“
Why should you be Catholic and not Orthodox? Because the Council of Florence declares that “schismatics” cannot be saved unless they are joined with the Catholic Church (And yes, the Orthodox are schismatics because Cannon Law 751 defines refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff as schism).
You then say at the end of your post that most people are Catholic because Christ is present and the Holy Spirit guides us. But you cannot distangle Christ’s presence from him establishing One Universal Church and Jesus giving Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, the Pope’s authority to teach on Faith and Morals! And even if this is not a “reason” most people are Catholic, and is something many Catholics reject, Truth is not determined by numbers. All you have shown is that many Catholics are at least materially (God judges culpability) guilty of heresy and schism!
Then, you make a meaningless distinction:
You said I mistake the “reason to belong in the denomination for the reason to belong in the Church” as if the Catholic Church was not the One Universal and True Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Let me repeat that. Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation! Please process that and tell me that is not a “reason” to join the Catholic Church?
The Council of Florence, an ecumenical council, for which there can be no disagreement since it is infallible, will clear up the confusion:
“[The holy Roman church] firmly believes, professes, and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church (Session 11 — Feb. 4, 1442).“
Why should you be Catholic and not Orthodox? Because the Council of Florence declares that “schismatics” cannot be saved unless they are joined with the Catholic Church (And yes, the Orthodox are schismatics because Cannon Law 751 defines refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff as schism).
You then say at the end of your post that most people are Catholic because Christ is present and the Holy Spirit guides us. But you cannot distangle Christ’s presence from him establishing One Universal Church and Jesus giving Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, the Pope’s authority to teach on Faith and Morals! And even if this is not a “reason” most people are Catholic, and is something many Catholics reject, Truth is not determined by numbers. All you have shown is that many Catholics are at least materially (God judges culpability) guilty of heresy and schism!
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
Illustrates that obedience is not merely the absorbing of a set of doctrines, it is adherence to the Church and her authority. Which is in PEOPLE, not books. Just like Christ, who is a person, not a book. And that can be difficult for all of us.Only in Catholic circles do I see people with the logic of beleiving the magisterium to be infaillable on certain issue and still disagree with the magisterium on some of those issues. Logic? not at all
When I was in protestant circles it would blow our minds when discussing with Catholics and they claimed papal infaillability on doctrine when it suited them but at the same time disagreed with certain doctrines and where also supposed to be infaillable and say “they are entitled to their opinion”.
Last edited:
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
- That is called cherry picking and is it’s own brand of Catholic Cafeterianism that you rail against. I too disagree with the Current Church on the death penalty but it is not correct for me to then explain it away. The pope taught. And did so in his capacity TO teach. In my view he is mistaken, but it does not concern my current circumstances. I am not in a position to vote on legislation or sit on a Jury involving the death penalty. I disagree but it is EASY for me to obey. I just chalk it up to “well I guess the Church is trustworthy and since it isn’t high on my feelings list I just bow to Holy Mother Church.”
- Now here is where one you are not correct about “private remarks” The Pope 500 years ago could be at a dinner at a friends house and in a hypothetical debate discuss his “private opinion” and you, me and lady Gaga would never hear of it. But with the invention of mass comunication, the proliferation of literacy, the internet, airplanes, press, media coverage, etc we have a NEW way of communication. We don’t unroll a scroll with a wax seal on it and proclaim it to the village, no, in real time we ask our leader to teach us. So when the Pope calls all the press together and invites (some would say pre-approves) questions on a variety of moral subjects he is doing so as not just a man, not just a head of state, not just a theologian, not just a priest, not just a bishop, not just a cardinal but as the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ and head of the Church. He is purposely teaching, not offering an opinion. This is most definitely new but it is obvious that it is low level magisterial. When the Pope offers his take on who will win the world cup he is not speaking of faith and morals, when he says that spanking a child is an act of beauty he is not speaking of faith and morals, when he says that bridges are better than walls he is not speaking of faith and morals. but when he says, publicly to his flock, "that barrier method ABC is ok in zika areas, he IS addressing a moral issue confronting his flock.
Would you agree if not on the magesterium but that the use of condoms is not to be condoned by the Church?
A
alphonsus1
Guest
I never insisted on being Catholic only because of the Pope. I agree that there can be multiple reasons for being Catholic, including the ones you presented. So don’t create disagreement where none exists!
I also said that the Pope’s ability to teach on Faith and Morals is an ADDITIONAL, and KEY logical piece in why Catholicism is True, which without that piece you have no logical reason for being Catholic over Eastern Orthodox (and other religions because without this piece I think it’s hard to argue against people who say they are “Cafeteria multiple religions.”)
This matters because the Catholic Church is the Truth, and we should be Christian first and foremost because it is True. That is, Jesus is God (because otherwise your point about Christ’s presence makes absolutely no sense as a reason to even be Christian).
And similarly, we should be Catholic because it is True and the only way to salvation (not just for family, community, etc.)
I also said that the Pope’s ability to teach on Faith and Morals is an ADDITIONAL, and KEY logical piece in why Catholicism is True, which without that piece you have no logical reason for being Catholic over Eastern Orthodox (and other religions because without this piece I think it’s hard to argue against people who say they are “Cafeteria multiple religions.”)
This matters because the Catholic Church is the Truth, and we should be Christian first and foremost because it is True. That is, Jesus is God (because otherwise your point about Christ’s presence makes absolutely no sense as a reason to even be Christian).
And similarly, we should be Catholic because it is True and the only way to salvation (not just for family, community, etc.)
Last edited:
C
catholicray
Guest
I believe everything taught by the infallible magisterium. Being a somewhat recent convert though, I find that sometimes I am in error in my understanding. So it’s always a journey toward dogma in my heart. By obedience and willingness to learn and be corrected I enjoy communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
A
alphonsus1
Guest
- First, you most definitely can disagree with Pope Francis on his prudential judgments, and not be disagreeing with the Magisterium. The Magisterium regards Faith and Morals. However, those things that you have to go out into the world and test/ empirically verify, are not Faith and Morals. This explains the Church’s Galileo scandal. No more do we think God gives the Pope scientific knowledge of the solar system without having to observe it in the first place, than do we believe Pope Francis has expert knowledge of detention schemes, the deterrence effect, or the probably of a criminal repenting in the face of death vs life in prison. Simply, these are all circumstances, not Faith and Morals.
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
I never said I disagreed with Pope Francis on the death penalty. To tell you the Truth, I haven’t researched it enough.
- No, this is incorrect. It is not part of the Magisterium when the Pope makes remarks on an airplane. You are incorrect, technology does not change how the teaching authority of the Church is promulgated. But like I said before, I don’t want this thread to be about the nuances of the Magisterium (whether infallible or noninfallible).
Last edited:
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
The remarks are not “pivate” when they are made to reporters… That is common sense.
A
alphonsus1
Guest
Thank you. I deleted the word private.
But the point remains, the Pope is still not exercising the Magisterium. Similarly, every public book (or other work) that a Pope writes, is not automatically part of the Magisterium.
But the point remains, the Pope is still not exercising the Magisterium. Similarly, every public book (or other work) that a Pope writes, is not automatically part of the Magisterium.
Last edited:
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
The pope is teaching as the pope to the faithful in the matters of faith and morals… I am at a loss to call that if not part of the magisterium.
P
Pug
Guest
I can’t flee a doubt. I can walk around pretending I don’t have it, but I can’t escape my own self. If I don’t understand how something could be true then I don’t understand. All I can do is try to resolve the problem through study, reflection, or seeking assistance. Or I can ignore the problem and mostly refuse to think about those particular religious topics, though for some topics that kind of hard. It should go without saying, don’t act on it if that can be avoided.To repeat, skepticism and doubt being sins depends on whether that doubt is within your control or not. It depends on whether you cultivate that doubt. And yes, doubt can he near occasion of sin, so flee!
Myself, I attempt to adhere to the teachings of the Church. That is the best I can do. There is no official list of only the infallible doctrines proposed as a creed or something, so that is not a workable way to have faith for me. I trust Jesus. I trust the Holy Spirit to guide, etc.
A
alphonsus1
Guest
No, any doubt whatsoever is not a mortal sin, because you cannot control your doubts and Moral intuitions. I am saying you should flee from the near occasions of heresy (throw off your voluntary doubts immediately). Flee! Flee! Flee! Also, mortal sin must be knowingly and deliberately consented to.
I could not disagree more with this post. Cultivating doubt, and deliberately consenting to being skeptical, is not what the Church calls us to be.
“Catechism 2088: The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.
Catechism 2089: Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.”
Also, doubt and skepticism are not the same thing as intellectual curiosity, being inquisitive, and pursuing the Truth. Also, not being able to wrap your head around the Truth, or considering counter arguments presented by atheists and non-Catholics, is not doubt or skepticism.
I could not disagree more with this post. Cultivating doubt, and deliberately consenting to being skeptical, is not what the Church calls us to be.
“Catechism 2088: The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.
Catechism 2089: Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.”
Also, doubt and skepticism are not the same thing as intellectual curiosity, being inquisitive, and pursuing the Truth. Also, not being able to wrap your head around the Truth, or considering counter arguments presented by atheists and non-Catholics, is not doubt or skepticism.
Last edited:
A
alphonsus1
Guest
I think we agree for the most part. We also agree that: “study, reflection, or seeking assistance” are awesome. And obviously you cannot control feelings, intuitions, involuntary doubts.
But yes, you can control voluntary doubts. These voluntary doubts must be thrown off immediately, that is all the Church can ask. Flee! Flee! Flee!
Your post saying doubt is outside of your control is a half truth, because it ignores voluntary doubt within your control (which is why I am saying we should flee from near occasions of heresy, by fleeing doubt within our control and refusing to cultivate it).
But I think we mostly agree!
.
“Catechism 2088:
The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.
Catechism 2089:
Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.”
But yes, you can control voluntary doubts. These voluntary doubts must be thrown off immediately, that is all the Church can ask. Flee! Flee! Flee!
Your post saying doubt is outside of your control is a half truth, because it ignores voluntary doubt within your control (which is why I am saying we should flee from near occasions of heresy, by fleeing doubt within our control and refusing to cultivate it).
But I think we mostly agree!
.
“Catechism 2088:
The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.
Catechism 2089:
Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.”
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
Short answer: Yes, I do.Do you agree with every issue of Faith and Morals in the infallible Magisterium? In the non-infallible Magisterium? (With every letter, every comma, everything).
Long answer: If it is dogmatic or doctrinal: yes, I believe everything. If it’s pastoral or discipline, there are a few places that I question the wisdom of a few decisions (but do not 100% disagree with them)
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
I am trying to wrap my mind around why anyone would (A) be Catholic (B) throw out the logical reason to even be Catholic in the first place. Why not be Eastern Orthodox? (The only answer is the authority of the Pope to teach on Faith and Morals).
for one Christian denomination to be True over another requries having a reason why that one is the fullness of Truth. That is the entire logical reason for being Catholic and not just Christian, or Eastern Orthodox.
If you throw that out, you throw out the entire logical reason to be Catholic in the first place OVER Eastern Orthodox
This matters because the Catholic Church is the Truth, and we should be Christian first and foremost because it is True.
If you say so. You seem to be saying it is “the reason”, “the entire logical reason” “first and foremost” etc. The only qualifier you use is the one I described, a comparison of the Catholic Church with the Orthodox as if the two were equivalent organizations.You keep creating an argument I never made. I never said that the Pope’s authority to teach on Faith and Morals was the ONLY reason to be Catholic. I said it was ONE among many reasons to be Catholic.
But if that is not what you meant, thank you for qualifying. That is all I ever asked for.
A
alphonsus1
Guest
It is “the” logical reason, “the entire logical reason,” to be Catholic OVER Eastern Orthodox (that was the whole jist of my posts when I used “the”) It is a key piece of the puzzle, and essential for the Church being the one true church, and salvation! It is entirely a reason to be Catholic.
Also, I stand by, it makes no sense to be Christian in the first place because of Christ’s presence, without first believing he is God. So you must first believe it is True to be Christian. Similarly, believe it is True to be Catholic.
But it is not the only reason! I think we worked out the nuance?
Also, I stand by, it makes no sense to be Christian in the first place because of Christ’s presence, without first believing he is God. So you must first believe it is True to be Christian. Similarly, believe it is True to be Catholic.
But it is not the only reason! I think we worked out the nuance?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.