Ecclesiastical Dogma?

[Thoughtfulone]

Is it true that it is not heresy to disagree with the Church on matters of ecclesiastical dogma since they were neither revealed by Christ himself nor the Apostles? I have read that infallibility does not apply to matters of ecclesiastical dogma. What falls under the definition of ecclesiastical dogma? What about sex and whether or not oral sex is permissible? Clearly this is ecclesiastical dogma, yes? Wouldn’t there also be many other things that fall under this umbrella as well?

 

[AndyF]

Thoughtfulone:

Not sure if this is what your looking for. Many false accusations of heresy have been unfairly lodged by a few on this forum. The Church is much more liberal than they would lead us to believe.

Ref: The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott.

De Fide - The highest degree of certainty pertains to immediately revealed truths, due on the Authority of God revealing. If these truths are solemnly defined by the Magisterium, they are “de defide definita”. (Example: The Dogma of the Trinity)

Fides Ecclesiastica - Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiatica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper. (Example: Anglican Order are invalid.)

Sententia Ad Fidem Pertinens - A teaching pertaining to the Faith is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions). (Example: An all male priesthood. Some may disagree and suggest that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an infallible pronouncement on this issue.)

Sententia Fidei Proxima - A teaching proximate to Faith is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church. (Example: Mary as Co-Mediaterix)

Sententia Communis - Common teaching is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally. (Example: Christ’s soul possessed infused knowledge.)

Sententia Probabablis - Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded.:

 ***Sententia Pia***: Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions.

 ***Opinio Tolerata***: The least degree of certainity is possessed by the tolerated opinion which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church. (Example: Rigorist (strict) view of "No Salvation Outside the Church", or the existence of Limbo.)

Andy

 

[nov8r]

De Fide - The highest degree of certainty pertains to immediately revealed truths, due on the Authority of God revealing. If these truths are solemnly defined by the Magisterium, they are “de defide definita”. (Example: The Dogma of the Trinity)

Does “immediately” revealed mean clearly enunciated in Scripture? And where would one find an exhaustive online listing of these, please?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Thank you for the information! I am specifically referring to something I read in the Catholic Encyclopedia re: Dogma -

“It is a dogma of faith that the Church is infallible in defining these two classes of revealed truths [Divinely revealed and Apostolically revealed]; and the deliberate denial of one of these dogmas certainly involves the sin of heresy. There is a diversity of opinion about virtually revealed truths, which has its roots in a diversity of opinion about the material object of faith (see FAITH). It is enough to say here that, according to some theologians, virtually revealed truths belong to the material object of faith and become dogmas in the strict sense when defined or proposed by the Church; and according to others, they do not belong to the material object of faith prior to their definition, but become strict dogmas when defined; and, according to others, they do not belong to the material object of Divine faith at all, nor become dogmas in the strict sense when defined, but may be called mediately-Divine or ecclesiastical dogmas. In the hypothesis that virtually revealed conclusions do not belong to the material object of faith, it has not been defined that the Church is infallible in defining these truths, the infallibility of the Church, however, in relation to these truths is a doctrine of the Church theologically certain, which cannot lawfully be denied — and though the denial of an ecclesiastical dogma would not be heresy in the strict sense, it could entail the sundering of the bond of faith and expulsion from the Church by the Church’s anathema or excommunication.”

This seems to imply that there are certain dogmas of the Catholic Church [ecclesiastic] that we are not necessarily bound by as we would be by others. Would the church’s stance on things like birth control and oral sex apply here since these things were not immediately revealed dogmas? What else would fall into this category?

 

[thistle]

Thank you for the information! I am specifically referring to something I read in the Catholic Encyclopedia re: Dogma -

“It is a dogma of faith that the Church is infallible in defining these two classes of revealed truths [Divinely revealed and Apostolically revealed]; and the deliberate denial of one of these dogmas certainly involves the sin of heresy. There is a diversity of opinion about virtually revealed truths, which has its roots in a diversity of opinion about the material object of faith (see FAITH). It is enough to say here that, according to some theologians, virtually revealed truths belong to the material object of faith and become dogmas in the strict sense when defined or proposed by the Church; and according to others, they do not belong to the material object of faith prior to their definition, but become strict dogmas when defined; and, according to others, they do not belong to the material object of Divine faith at all, nor become dogmas in the strict sense when defined, but may be called mediately-Divine or ecclesiastical dogmas. In the hypothesis that virtually revealed conclusions do not belong to the material object of faith, it has not been defined that the Church is infallible in defining these truths, the infallibility of the Church, however, in relation to these truths is a doctrine of the Church theologically certain, which cannot lawfully be denied — and though the denial of an ecclesiastical dogma would not be heresy in the strict sense, it could entail the sundering of the bond of faith and expulsion from the Church by the Church’s anathema or excommunication.”

This seems to imply that there are certain dogmas of the Catholic Church [ecclesiastic] that we are not necessarily bound by as we would be by others. Would the church’s stance on things like birth control and oral sex apply here since these things were not immediately revealed dogmas? What else would fall into this category?

By definition a dogma is infallible. It is a truth that will never change and we are all bound to believe it and accept it.
The teaching against birth control is dogma and will never change.
There is no specific teaching at all on oral sex apart from any sexual act outside marriage being a grave sin.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

But the above article states that ecclesiastical dogma does not fall under the umbrella of Church teachings that are infallible since these dogmas are not truths given directly from God or from the Apostles. Also, I was referring to oral sex in which ejaculation occurs outside of the woman’s vagina as being dogmatically a grave sin. Am I correct?

 

[thistle]

But the above article states that ecclesiastical dogma does not fall under the umbrella of Church teachings that are infallible since these dogmas are not truths given directly from God or from the Apostles. **Also, I was referring to oral sex in which ejaculation occurs outside of the woman’s vagina as being dogmatically a grave sin. ** Am I correct?

Any sexual act outside marriage is a grave sin.
Any sexual act within marriage which does not finish with the husband climaxing inside his wife is a grave sin. It need not be oral sex. It also applies to masturbation.
These are infallible teachings which can never be changed.

With regard to dogma this is the definition from the Modern Catholic Dictionary:

DOGMA. Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation. All dogmas, therefore, are formally revealed truths and promulgated as such by the Church. They are revealed either in Scripture or tradition, either explicitly (as the Incarnation) or implicitly (as the Assumption). Moreover, their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation. They may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner, as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception, or in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life. (Etym. Latin dogma; from Greek dogma, declaration, decree.)

By the way, when you say Ecclesiastical Dogma are you actually talking about Canon Law. Not all Canon law is infallible and Catholics may disagree with some things but we are still bound to obey it.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Thank you Thistle for the thoughtful response! So, if I am to understand correctly, we must BELIEVE all dogma taught by the Church, not merely obey the Church regarding it?

Also, if the masturbation issue is not a divinely revealed truth, then how can the Church’s teaching on it be infallible? This issue sort of bothers me simply because although I believe that masturbation is far from God’s ideal for us, I have a hard time believing it to be a GRAVE sin which separates us from the friendship of God. No matter how much I read up on it and study the Church’s position, I can’t seem to align myself with the Church on this one, which is upsetting, because I WANT to believe the Church is infallible when she says she has made an infallible judgement, but since I can’t seem to align myself with her on this one, it has me questioning the issue of infallibility unfortunately. This isn’t even one of those scenarios where it happens to be a pet sin of mine or anything, I just honestly don’t see this as being GRAVELY sinful no matter how hard I try.

 

[NewsTheMan]

Dont mean to Hijack— but where does contraception fall into in the above categories?

 

[thistle]

Thank you Thistle for the thoughtful response! So, if I am to understand correctly, we must BELIEVE all dogma taught by the Church, not merely obey the Church regarding it?

Also, if the masturbation issue is not a divinely revealed truth, then how can the Church’s teaching on it be infallible? This issue sort of bothers me simply because although I believe that masturbation is far from God’s ideal for us, I have a hard time believing it to be a GRAVE sin which separates us from the friendship of God. No matter how much I read up on it and study the Church’s position, I can’t seem to align myself with the Church on this one, which is upsetting, because I WANT to believe the Church is infallible when she says she has made an infallible judgement, but since I can’t seem to align myself with her on this one, it has me questioning the issue of infallibility unfortunately. This isn’t even one of those scenarios where it happens to be a pet sin of mine or anything, I just honestly don’t see this as being GRAVELY sinful no matter how hard I try.

But Scripture specifically states a man cannot spill his seed on the ground. In other words he cannot masturbate or withdraw from his wife and then climax. Such acts are contraceptive and deny the unitive and procreative acts of marriage.

The following link shows you what Scripture says about contraception and also what the Early Church Fathers wrote about it too.

scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

 

[Thoughtfulone]

See, this is where I have a problem. Some of those passages have people unable to enter “the assembly” simply for having crushed or damaged testicles against their will. If we accept the death of Onan as being a result of him spilling his seed on the ground and say that this still applies today, then we must take ALL of the hundreds of laws of the OT with the same level of seriousness. So basically, someone who has an accident that crushes their testicles cannot enter Heaven. Seems like the Church is picking and choosing here.

 

[Nita]

Thank you Thistle for the thoughtful response! So, if I am to understand correctly, we must BELIEVE all dogma taught by the Church, not merely obey the Church regarding it?
.

It depends upon what you mean by BELIEVE. We are bound to accept what the Church teaches infallibly; to acknowledge that it is truth. But that does not mean that we have to understand it. Our understanding can be faulty and because of that we can have trouble seeing how the Church teaching can be true. When this is the case, we need to accept in a manner something like –
“Jesus, I don’t understand why this should be a serious sin; according to my thinking it doesn’t seem to be serious. But I know your Church has the power of infallibility and therefore I accept what she teaches as the truth and will try to live accordingly. Please Jesus, help me to understand why the Church teaching is true and to recognize where my reasoning is wrong.”

 

[Mystic_Banana]

See, this is where I have a problem. Some of those passages have people unable to enter “the assembly” simply for having crushed or damaged testicles against their will. If we accept the death of Onan as being a result of him spilling his seed on the ground and say that this still applies today, then we must take ALL of the hundreds of laws of the OT with the same level of seriousness. So basically, someone who has an accident that crushes their testicles cannot enter Heaven. Seems like the Church is picking and choosing here.

I can’t help but agree… it seems a bit arbitrary! And yet… I can’t help but think the Catholic way is probably the most effective way of living, for our emotional and spiritual wellbeing… if only I’d manage it quite so successfully!

 

[clmowry]

Seems like the Church is picking and choosing here.

And that would be the Church’s job [not ours].

Obedience to Church teaching is a requirement regardless of the theological status of the particular teaching in question. i.e. Dogma or discipline, disobedience is still sinful.

Chuck

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I can’t help but agree… it seems a bit arbitrary! And yet… I can’t help but think the Catholic way is probably the most effective way of living, for our emotional and spiritual wellbeing… if only I’d manage it quite so successfully!

Thank you!!! I feel as if I am being rejected by my church for something I cannot help! I try so hard to believe what our church teaches, but I cannot get there! Once again, this is not a pet sin of mine…it could be almost anything…but this means that I end up doubting the infallibility of the church, which in turn means I doubt the foundation upon which the church is set…ugh! I feel like God wants me to think and reason for myself but doing so seems to undermine my faith! What to do?

 

[thistle]

Thank you!!! I feel as if I am being rejected by my church for something I cannot help! I try so hard to believe what our church teaches, but I cannot get there! Once again, this is not a pet sin of mine…it could be almost anything…but this means that I end up doubting the infallibility of the church, which in turn means I doubt the foundation upon which the church is set…ugh! I feel like God wants me to think and reason for myself but doing so seems to undermine my faith! What to do?

Actually its very simple. Christ gave authority to the Church to loose and bind. In other words Christ is saying that he is giving the Church authority in all matters of faith and morals and the faithful must accept that because Christ stands behind his Church. The teachings of the Church through the Magesterium are based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. If you doubt the teachings of the Church you are doubting Christ.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Actually its very simple. Christ gave authority to the Church to loose and bind. In other words Christ is saying that he is giving the Church authority in all matters of faith and morals and the faithful must accept that because Christ stands behind his Church. The teachings of the Church through the Magesterium are based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. If you doubt the teachings of the Church you are doubting Christ.

I know this is not going to be very popular, but I just do not believe that. I love Christ and I believe that He loves me. I just don’t believe that I should ignore my conscience and I also believe that there are circumstances where the Church can be and has been (gasp!) wrong. I have read the scriptures and I do not believe that they in any way make the Church infallible. I believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church and I believe that Christ of course loves the Church very much and I do believe that it is the best and truest path to God. I believe that if our Pope, bishops and priests were as holy as they could be and spiritually perfect that they would always have the grace to know the will of Christ in all matters, but they are fallible men. Fallible men do not suddenly become infallible because they say it’s so. I pray and I read and I ask for God’s help and guidance and if my conscience still tells me something is right or wrong, I am bound to follow it because at the end of my life, it’s just going to be me and God standing there and i won’t be able to hide behind the Church. I need to worry more about helping my fellow man and being charitable to others, not about semantics and legalism. That is where I feel Christ is leading me right now and I know this might tick some people off but I still consider myself a Catholic in every way that matters. I pray, I attend Mass, I go to Reconciliation and I have received all of the other sacraments except for Holy Orders and Anointing of the Sick. I belong to the Confraternity of the Rosary. I just disagree with the Church on a couple of matters, that’s all. I honestly do not believe that God will hold it against me.

 

[thistle]

I know this is not going to be very popular, but I just do not believe that. I love Christ and I believe that He loves me. I just don’t believe that I should ignore my conscience and I also believe that there are circumstances where the Church can be and has been (gasp!) wrong. I have read the scriptures and I do not believe that they in any way make the Church infallible. I believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church and I believe that Christ of course loves the Church very much and I do believe that it is the best and truest path to God. I believe that if our Pope, bishops and priests were as holy as they could be and spiritually perfect that they would always have the grace to know the will of Christ in all matters, but they are fallible men. Fallible men do not suddenly become infallible because they say it’s so. I pray and I read and I ask for God’s help and guidance and if my conscience still tells me something is right or wrong, I am bound to follow it because at the end of my life, it’s just going to be me and God standing there and i won’t be able to hide behind the Church. I need to worry more about helping my fellow man and being charitable to others, not about semantics and legalism. That is where I feel Christ is leading me right now and I know this might tick some people off but I still consider myself a Catholic in every way that matters. I pray, I attend Mass, I go to Reconciliation and I have received all of the other sacraments except for Holy Orders and Anointing of the Sick. I belong to the Confraternity of the Rosary. I just disagree with the Church on a couple of matters, that’s all. I honestly do not believe that God will hold it against me.

First off, the Church has never and can never be in error in matters of faith and morals. If that were not the case then it would mean Christ had lied when he gave the Church authority and said the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. There is no gray area. Either you believe Christ and his Church or you don’t. Choosing what to believe from the teachings is not an option. The so-called cafeteria Catholics (those who pick and choose what to believe or not) are actually heretics.
Rejecting one or more of the teachings of the Church is heresy and a grave sin.

Sadly many people take the attitude that if they live a good life, love and help other people then they have a clear conscience and God would not reject them when they die and face him.
This is the attitude of non-Catholics and also Catholics who refuse to do God’s will. They decide for themselves what to believe or not believe and anything they reject they expect God to bend to their will because they are not prepared to do his will and use “conscience” as a justification to continue sinning.
Unfortunately that is wrong. All the good works done during your life have no merit if you die in a state of mortal sin which you would do if you reject any of the Church teachings and die unrepentent. Anyone dying in unrepentent mortal sin condemns themselves to Hell.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

First off, the Church has never and can never be in error in matters of faith and morals. If that were not the case then it would mean Christ had lied when he gave the Church authority and said the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. There is no gray area. Either you believe Christ and his Church or you don’t. Choosing what to believe from the teachings is not an option. The so-called cafeteria Catholics (those who pick and choose what to believe or not) are actually heretics.
Rejecting one or more of the teachings of the Church is heresy and a grave sin.

Sadly many people take the attitude that if they live a good life, love and help other people then they have a clear conscience and God would not reject them when they die and face him.
This is the attitude of non-Catholics and also Catholics who refuse to do God’s will. They decide for themselves what to believe or not believe and anything they reject they expect God to bend to their will because they are not prepared to do his will and use “conscience” as a justification to continue sinning.
Unfortunately that is wrong. All the good works done during your life have no merit if you die in a state of mortal sin which you would do if you reject any of the Church teachings and die unrepentent. Anyone dying in unrepentent mortal sin condemns themselves to Hell.

I know where you are coming from and what you are saying, but I do not interpret the Bible that way. I fail to see how people have interpreted these scriptures as meaning that the Church is totally infallible and I know that Christ never would have made it so difficult for otherwise good people to get into Heaven. “The gates of Hell will not prevail, etc…” in no way means that the Church can never be wrong. Not even close. My “conscience” as you put it is not something to be put into quotes and mocked as something of little or no value. The catechism itself teaches that. It is something I have carefully and thoughtfully formed and I am still on that journey. Of course Christ did not lie. It’s just that the Church is made of men and men make mistakes and sometimes even do things for personal gain. Bishops are no exception.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I know where you are coming from and what you are saying, but I do not interpret the Bible that way. I fail to see how people have interpreted these scriptures as meaning that the Church is totally infallible and I know that Christ never would have made it so difficult for otherwise good people to get into Heaven. “The gates of Hell will not prevail, etc…” in no way means that the Church can never be wrong. Not even close. My “conscience” as you put it is not something to be put into quotes and mocked as something of little or no value. The catechism itself teaches that. It is something I have carefully and thoughtfully formed and I am still on that journey. Of course Christ did not lie. It’s just that the Church is made of men and men make mistakes and sometimes even do things for personal gain. Bishops are no exception.

Honestly-If you do not believe in the infallability of the Church you might as well not be Catholic.