Do you agree with everything in the Magisterium?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alphonsus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
By communicating His Spirit, Christ made His brothers, called together from all nations, mystically the components of His own Body.
Lumen Gentium 7
Click to expand...
Somehow, I just do not see how infallible teaching authority could be more important than this.

I don’t want to derail your thread, but I suspect this has to do with your original question. Then I read something about the priority of evangelization over doctrine, which is what this is about I suppose, so I thought I should respond.
 
Agree with everything I’ve come across. I don’t assume I know all teachings so that I may say I agree with all of them, but I trust Holy Mother Church.
 
Before I was confirmed two years ago I was asked if I affirm all that the church teaches and holds to be revealed by God. I said “I do”. I meant it then and I mean it now.

But it seems like you have a really stringent definition of doubt. If I am trying to solve an integral for example out of a calculus book and I’m not getting the correct answer I might look in the back of the book and say “That can’t be right.”

But if course, it is right. And I know it’s right. But my mathematical powers aren’t capable of letting me reach that conclusion.

That’s how I feel for example about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. When I sit down and really think about it–when I do the calculus myself as it were–I don’t get the answer in the back of the book. My exegetical powers, my knowledge of Greek, aren’t capable of letting me get the same answer as the church. But I still 100% know she’s right.
 
Last edited:
Not to start a big fight, but Lumen Gentium is a very very complicated and beautiful document. Additionally it’s SUCH a “both and”. Not an “either or”. For example 14. Paragraph 2 (added emphasis).
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity.
Click to expand...
Assent to doctrine is part of being in the church. Getting someone in the door, getting them to love Christ are all amazing things. But to be incorporated in the body they have to finally assent.

(I realize I picked out a very small post, and I’m sure your opinion is much more nuanced. But people love to quote short snipits of Lumen Gentium to support their view, when the document definitely emphasizes the need for both evangelism and boldly proclaiming even hard church teachings.)
 
Kima said:
  • I´m skeptical towards papal infallibilty, but I accept it under the right circumstances.
  • I think we as Catholics always should recieve the Eucharist both as the blood and the body. Because Jesus says we are to consume both.
Click to expand...
Sure, if it is offered - but remember that only the eleven were given that command. The Church has rightly declared that either or both are just fine. His Blood speaks strongly to me, but I am immune compromised and, for the time being, do not partake. Still, the Eucharist itself brings tears, so powerful are the graces.
 
chessnerd321 said:
Assent to doctrine is part of being in the church. Getting someone in the door, getting them to love Christ are all amazing things. But to be incorporated in the body they have to finally assent.
Click to expand...
We are discussing this comment:
alphonsus1 said:
If you throw out Jesus giving Peter the authority to teach on Faith and morals, and the Magisterium, then you throw out the entire logical reason to be Catholic in the first place and not something else.
Click to expand...
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. It does not sound like that is what you think.

Of course it is a part of being Catholic, but it is not the part that motivates all Catholics to be members. A few people might think that is what motivates them, but most of them are probably wrong.
 
First, the irony of this statement astounds me. You are judging what is in the heart of a particular, specific individual, exactly what Jesus calls us NOT to do.

We should rarely say, “Person X is doing sin Y,” or “Person X has Y in their heart.” It is not our job to judge!

Instead, we should specifically respond to errors, not people, and Catholics should rarely accuse individuals of sin, nor judge their intentions/ hearts. For example, the very first post I responded to had an error. It said that we can disagree with the infallible Magisterium, so I replied with the definition of heresy to show you must indeed assent to the infallible Magisterium.

Second, “warning” of the dangers of perdition is not “scolding.” My advice is directly from St. Alphonsus (flee from sin), Doctor of the Church, and I say it on many posts, never to “scold.” Should we not get out a pen and pencil and copy how the Saints acted? It isn’t “scolding” because it doesn’t depend on anyone having done anything wrong. Even St. Mother Theresa should flee from sin, it applies to everyone! Flee! Flee! Flee!

Third, I created this thread to get a sense of the Catholic Answers Forums in general (averages), more than particular individuals, but (1) I do not know how to create a poll (2) there were erroneous statements that could mislead the Faithful that I had to point out. Others said I was in error! I’m not allowed to respond?

Lastly, and this is most confusing to me. Even if you were “calling out heresy,” would you not call me out if I made a racist joke, a joke about the Halocaust, or if I mocked a disabled person, and say “hey, that’s really not cool.” So too, obstinently disagreeing with the infallible Magisterium is against the very Truths of the Catholic Faith, so is even worse, and “not cool”

It amazes me that St. Thomas thought public teachers of heresy should get the death penalty. Yet merely calling out heresy is not justified by the circumstances of making it socially unacceptable to hold opinions that contradict the infallible Magisterium?
 
Last edited:
Doubt that comes independent of your will is not a sin, but could be near occasion of sin if you commit the omission of failing to throw off that doubt (or if you cultivate that doubt). So be safe and throw off doubt instantly!

Second, there is a distinction between material and formal heresy. Material heresy is holding a opinion contrary to the Truth, while formal heresy is judged by God, and is based on culpability. Do we have sufficient knowledge? Do other factors reduce imputibility? God judges that.

But in the absence of knowing how God will judge, be vigilant at all times! Flee from sin!
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
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).
Click to expand...
I give my submission of faith to the Living Magisterium. That includes items of faith that I have persistent intellectual skepticism over, including the resurrection of Christ, which is a mystery, as is just about everything in relation to God.
“If you find the God you think you understand, you’ve probably built yourself an idol”
Click to expand...
“If the Christian faith doesn’t challenge and befuddle your intellect to the core, you probably haven’t seriously considered what you believe.”
Click to expand...
Let’s not confuse skepticism, intellectual disagreement and such, with rebellion and apostasy. Not the same thing at all.
 
I need to nuance this comment. It is not the “sole” reason to be Catholic, there are other reasons to be Catholic, but Eastern Orthodox have those same reasons too! (They have The Bible, their own tradition, too!)

However, in choosing one religion over another, it must be based on Truth. We are not Catholic because our family is. It is not just for the sake of rituals, or for a sense of community. It is based on what is True!

And like I said before, to get to the Truth of Catholicism over Eastern Orthodox, you must use the authority of the Pope to teach on Faith and Morals. If you throw that out, you throw out the entire logical reason to be Catholic in the first place OVER Eastern Orthodox (There still exist reasons to be Catholic, those reasons would just apply to other religions. So you would be choosing to remain Catholic not based on it being “Truth,” but just for the Traditions, rituals, loyalty, community, etc).
 
Last edited:
Okay, some thoughts.
  1. The death penalty update is not an issue of Faith and Morals, or a change in the object, so much as it is a prudential judgment of changing circumstances. So this is not part of the Magisterium. The “attacks human dignity” is a statement of Faith and Morals in the circumstances of the act. However, some have interpreted this as “subhuman living conditions,” not the inviolable dignity that cannot be attacked. Since I do not know the authoritativeness of Faith and Morals in the circumstances of an act, wait for Magisterial guidance. In summary though, Pope Francis’s update to the Catechism was not Faith and Morals, it took into account different incarceration schemes that exist now compared to in the past. According to Pope Benedict XVI, you can disagree with this and still receive Holy Communion, because it is not Faith and Morals!
  2. Pope Francis on Zika was not speaking in a document that had the capacity to be authoritative. So yes, we can disagree! The National Catholic Bioethics Center immediately said you could not use it. I love and support Pope Francis so much that it pains me to say he could have made a “small error,” but it’s possible for the Pope to error in his private remarks. I will give him the benefit of the doubt: maybe he is talking about a Zika infected husband who would pass on the disease to the child by sexual activity with his wife, and he is threatening his wife (if she won’t comply to sex), then could a wife use hormonal contraception?
 
Last edited:
I believe in the infallible teachings and Traditions which were passed on and safeguarded through the centuries by our infallible magisterium. I remain obedient to the Church and her teachings, but I don’t believe that obedience means to accept whatever comes out of the clergy’s mouth.

Unfortunately, some members of the clergy have sought to interpret authentic Catholic teachings and Traditions, in light of our modern world and with respect to modern issues and views. This, I feel, is not always in keeping with what the Church has always taught or held to be true.

So even though I hold fast to the Traditions/Teachings of the Church, I do not always agree with the interpretations of them by every member of the clergy.
 
I, LittleLady, with firm faith believe and profess each and everything that is contained in the Symbol of faith, namely:

I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.

I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.

Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...c_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

When I became Catholic I made a profession of Faith. I stand on it.
 
I disagree. It is true that other religions are not wrong about everything. For example, if Catholicism is the fullness of Truth, then obsecure monotheistic religions are right that there is one God. And many religions are right about an immense multitude of claims.

However, that being said, you are making the same error on religion that was made in the predictions of the 2016 United States Presidential elections. The error is that indeed, the Truth claims are correlated. Just like if one State goes Republican, a bunch of other states also go Republican. So too, if one claim is True in Catholicism, then multiple other Catholic claims must necessarily also be True.

For example, if Jesus is the Son of God, then this drastically increases the chances that the Holy Book written about said God Jesus, the Bible, is also the inspired word of God. Or if the Bible is the word of God, insofar as we can deduce the correct interpretation of the Bible, everything else taught in the Bible would fall into place.

Or if just this one claim, the Pope has the Authority to teach on Faith and Morals, was True, then everything else taught by the Magisterium would also fall into place!

So don’t be so quick to be a Cafeteria Catholic, or Cafeteria [insert religion X] (so be Cafeteria of many religions), because to repeat: the Truth claims are indeed correlated! (Therefore, one religion is likely to be the “fullness of Truth”)
 
Last edited:
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!

But no, not all doubt is a sin. And we all have doubts and incorrect Moral intutions to some degree or another (mine are way off).

All of these statements are True!
 
Last edited:
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”.
 
Can you give concrete examples of rejection? Do people reject Issues of Faith? Or Issues of Morals? Or both? Which one, Faith or Morals, do they reject more?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top