How much can a Catholic disagree with the Church?

[TimothyIgnatius]

This is a question that has been on my mind quite a lot lately. It seems to me as if there is a divide between the church hierarchy and the sensus fidelium. Now more than ever, people are leaving the church, or are simply adhering to the teachings they agree with, often described as “cafeteria catholicism,” something that the pope Benedict has compared to as being tantamount to the betrayal of Judas Iscariot against Christ.

What I don’t understand is why the Church now seems unwilling to even consider the need for any sort of reform or change, when that was the focal point of Vatican II.

Really the source of most of my disagreement comes from the dogma of papal infallibility (though there are more), a topic the priest Hans Küng has extensively spoken out against. Despite his criticism and the fact that they rescinded his license to teach the Church’s doctrines, he apparently remains “a Catholic priest in good standing.” Does this mean we can disagree and remain in good standing? At what point does the person go from “in good standing” to excommunicated?

It also seems to me that the core principle that all catholics agree upon (whether they are devout, cafeteria or cultural) is the healing power of Christ’s love, and how we need to embody that love in our lives. Was not Jesus considered a radical and a heretic amongst the Jews? Didn’t he challenge the irrationality of certain traditional teachings? Can catholics do the same without being condemned by the Church?

I hope not to incite arguments of any sort, I’m really just looking for perspective and maybe some answers to these difficult questions.

 

[jmjconder]

A few thoughts that are meant to spark thought not judge your post.

The sence of the faithful - when in opposition to maters of faith and morals - never proclaims a truth that Sacred Scripture and Tradition do not.

Actually I am relieved and experience more freedom knowing the CURCH guides me. If let to myself I would have never grown as i have in my spiritual life.

It seems that the “sence of the faithful” disagrees with the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals.

Is this the basis of your inquiry? Prayers for your desire to seek answers.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

A few thoughts that are meant to spark thought not judge your post.

The sence of the faithful - when in opposition to maters of faith and morals - never proclaims a truth that Sacred Scripture and Tradition do not.

Actually I am relieved and experience more freedom knowing the CURCH guides me. If let to myself I would have never grown as i have in my spiritual life.

It seems that the “sence of the faithful” disagrees with the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals.

Is this the basis of your inquiry? Prayers for your desire to seek answers.

Can you go into more detail about how Church guidance lent you more freedom?

Also, I do suppose that the basis of my inquiry lies with the sensus fidelium vs. the Church hierarchy, not necessarily the Church itself, which would include the laity. But the core of my own personal issue is with papal infallibility and the seemingly complete abandonment of the consensuses from Vatican II. Is there something essential I am missing here? These are things Hans Kung speaks of, and he still remains in good standing. Can I disagree with the Pope, as Kung has, and remain in good standing?

Many thanks for your prayers and your post did not make me feel judged.

 

[devoutchristian]

First I will point out that while the external effects do not take effect until it is declared publicly, excommunication (in regards to heresy) applies by the fact itself. Also, senses fidelum only applies when unanimity exist on an issue. So no, it is not permissible to disagree with the Church’s infallible teachings.

 

[Usige]

I am afraid you confuse sensus fidelium as being some type of democratic process. Generally I see this drug out when people dissent about Humanae Vitae, married clergy, or something else they think the people want to change. Sensus fidelium is guided by the magisterium of the Church. This includes the normal magisterium as well as dogmatic and doctrinal teachings.

As to how much dissent is possible? Personally I think Hans Kung walks a very fine line and should have been excommunicated as a schismatic. Catholics may question the teachings, but must abide by any teachings even if they disagree. Papal infallibility is a dogmatic revelation and cannot be changed. As such any who openly dissent would be like the Old Catholic Church who split after Vatican I and are still schismatic today.

I’m just curious if you can be more clear. Do you just disagree with papal infallibility in general or is it more because you want changes like Kung supports (i.e. dump limiting birth control, allow married priest, admit divorced and remarried person to the Eucharist). In other words do you see papal infallibility as a choke hold of the hierarchy on the people implementing changes to doctrine and discipline?

 

[JRKH]

Allow me to take a slightly different approach to this matter and say that you may disagree with the Church to the extent that your properly formed conscience dictates.
This means that before you determine to disagree with the Church it is necessary that you first learn what the Church teaches and why. That is to form your mind to the mind of the Church. Then - and only then - is it reasonable for a Catholic to consider whether they can - in good conscience - reject the teaching.

The Catechism discusses the matter of conscience HERE.

That said…there are two things that must be expressed as critical here…things relating to points mentioned in your post.

1. Infallibility…In choosing to reject a clear teaching of the Church on faith and morals, one is placing their own judgement - their own “infallibility” above that of the Church in her magisterium. This is a dangerous thing that needs to be carefully and soberly considered before rejecting any teaching.
2. Teaching…Even if you should, in all good conscience, determine to reject or modify or act against some teaching of the Church, it is necessary that you NOT teach others to do the same. Those who teach are held to a much higher standard…and Jesus had dire warnings for those who lead others astray.
   Instead, as a Catholic, it is good and necessary that we uphold the Church and her teachings in our relations with others.

Finally - I would offer one additional point. Very often I hear people talk of these things as if there is only two options - Agree or disagree - They seem to forget a third option…humble acceptance.
Humble acceptance does not require me to make the decision. As a Catholic, I begin from a point of acceptance. Thus, in matters I have not studied and/or don’t fully understand, the burden of proof lies with on the side of “disbelief”…In other words, if a doctrine cannot be clearly proven wrong then I assume it to be right.
After all - why would I be Catholic if I did not think the Church to be instituted of Christ and Spirit guided? Why should I remain Catholic, if I feel that the Church has to prove to ME before I believe…
And who am I to require this of my God and His Church…

Just some thoughts…

Peace
James

 

[PRmerger]

This is a question that has been on my mind quite a lot lately. It seems to me as if there is a divide between the church hierarchy and the sensus fidelium. Now more than ever, people are leaving the church, or are simply adhering to the teachings they agree with, often described as “cafeteria catholicism,” something that the pope Benedict has compared to as being tantamount to the betrayal of Judas Iscariot against Christ.

What I don’t understand is why the Church now seems unwilling to even consider the need for any sort of reform or change, when that was the focal point of Vatican II.

Really the source of most of my disagreement comes from the dogma of papal infallibility (though there are more), a topic the priest Hans Küng has extensively spoken out against. Despite his criticism and the fact that they rescinded his license to teach the Church’s doctrines, he apparently remains “a Catholic priest in good standing.” Does this mean we can disagree and remain in good standing? At what point does the person go from “in good standing” to excommunicated?

It also seems to me that the core principle that all catholics agree upon (whether they are devout, cafeteria or cultural) is the healing power of Christ’s love, and how we need to embody that love in our lives. Was not Jesus considered a radical and a heretic amongst the Jews? Didn’t he challenge the irrationality of certain traditional teachings? Can catholics do the same without being condemned by the Church?

I hope not to incite arguments of any sort, I’m really just looking for perspective and maybe some answers to these difficult questions.

From apologist Mark Shea: Depends on what you mean by “enough”. If you mean “enough to be saved” then I submit this is Minimum Daily Adult Requirement thinking.** No lover asks “What’s the absolute bare minimum amount of contact with my Beloved I can get away with?”** Similarly, if, as the Church claims, the fullness of revelation subsists in the Catholic communion, then “How little contact with the fullness of revelation can I get away with?” is the exact wrong question for somebody who is serious about discipleship to Christ. Our goal, according to Scripture, is not to achieve bare minimums of love, fellowship and discipleship with Christ and His Bride, but to “attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;… we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love” (Ephesians 4:13-16). When people tell us “I’ll be there in spirit!” we know they mean “I won’t be there.” Similarly, a merely partial spiritual unity, while a good start, is a bad finish. That is why we must all continue to work toward full unity in Christ, neither denying our commonalities nor papering over our differences.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

It is the general concept of papal infallibility that I struggle with. I don’t want to bog down the thread with specific issues like optional celibacy for priests, birth control, homosexual marriage, etc.

Copied from catholic.com quick answers:
“Papal infallibility means that the pope is protected from error when he “proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals” (CCC 891). This does not mean that he is impeccable (incapable of sin) or inerrant (incapable of error).”

I simply cannot wrap my head around this. They’re saying that the Pope is not without sin and can commit error, except when he is declaring a definitive doctrine. To my logical mind this doesn’t make sense. How can a sinner (by definition isn’t a sin a wrongful act?) ever, EVER be infallible, regardless of exclusivity of the action (ie it only applying to official Church doctrine).

If you look at a history of the Church, there are plenty of instances where clearly the leaders of the Church were not acting as true Catholics should. The burning of heretics, the crusades, etc. Fault has been recognized, and amended. Can anyone of good faith here tell me that throughout it’s history, leaders of the Church have never made wrong decisions? Infallibility was only made official in the late 1800’s. God has given man free will, has he not? Man is imperfect, is he not? The Pope and the magisterium are men, are they not?

One of you said that Kung should have been excommunicated, but he has not. He had even apparently met the Pope for dinner some years ago. Can someone explain to me why he can make his claims and still be in good standing with the Church, whereas I cannot?

No man will ever be perfect, and a life in Christ is a never ending process (at least that’s what I was taught. For the record all of my formal education comes from Catholic institutions, from Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus from pre-k to 8th and by the Jesuits from high school through college). In this sense, shouldn’t we always be examining ourselves for improvement (by which I mean bringing us closer to God)? Why doesn’t this apply to the magisterium? The concept of infallibility seems completely contrary to a life that continuously tries to embody Christ, such as the pursuit of such is an ongoing, life-long process. Such a process is, at least in my conscience, not congruous with the absolutism of papal infallibility.

May I respectfully ask those who adhere to “humble acceptance” what their reaction would be if tomorrow the Pope declared that Islam and not Catholicism was the true religion? Or if he made a doctrine saying all Catholics must sacrifice their first born to the Church? Obviously, these things would never happen, but if they did, would your response be, “Well, gotta go by what the Pope says always!”?

Can we also talk more about the Vatican II? Why does it seem like all of that work was completely abandoned? Can someone clear this up for me?

I don’t want people to see me as a radical, I just seek answers for something that does not sit right in my conscience, that being papal infallibility.

 

[ajecphotos]

My belief is that one should be able to voice objections to what one thinks is wrong etc.

I agree that the church is secret in a lot of ways and how it is run and how the hierarchy are viewed.

I was once told that the higher up in the church one ventures, the further away you get from Our Dear Lord!!

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

From apologist Mark Shea: Depends on what you mean by “enough”. If you mean “enough to be saved” then I submit this is Minimum Daily Adult Requirement thinking.** No lover asks “What’s the absolute bare minimum amount of contact with my Beloved I can get away with?”** Similarly, if, as the Church claims, the fullness of revelation subsists in the Catholic communion, then “How little contact with the fullness of revelation can I get away with?” is the exact wrong question for somebody who is serious about discipleship to Christ. Our goal, according to Scripture, is not to achieve bare minimums of love, fellowship and discipleship with Christ and His Bride, but to “attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;… we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love” (Ephesians 4:13-16). When people tell us “I’ll be there in spirit!” we know they mean “I won’t be there.” Similarly, a merely partial spiritual unity, while a good start, is a bad finish. That is why we must all continue to work toward full unity in Christ, neither denying our commonalities nor papering over our differences.

I’m confused by this. I don’t disagree with what you are saying, but I don’t see how it fits into this discussion? You seem to be implying that my dissent against papal infallibility makes me less attuned with the love of Christ. Perhaps you are right, but I don’t believe that to be so. I still love Christ and try to model my life after his teachings as much as I can. So will I be judged before God not for my faith and works but for my disagreements with papal infallibility? My spirit is incomplete because I found something objectionable in my conscience?

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

My belief is that one should be able to voice objections to what one thinks is wrong etc.

I agree that the church is secret in a lot of ways and how it is run and how the hierarchy are viewed.

Was this not the essence of the second Vatican council? Sometimes it seems as if the hierarchy doesn’t always operate out of a sense of justice and life in Christ but rather what will be the greatest consolidation of power for them. I realize that I am with fault and may be interpreting this incorrectly, however, hence why I am here asking these questions.

 

[ajecphotos]

It is the general concept of papal infallibility that I struggle with. I don’t want to bog down the thread with specific issues like optional celibacy for priests, birth control, homosexual marriage, etc.

Copied from catholic.com quick answers:
“Papal infallibility means that the pope is protected from error when he “proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals” (CCC 891). This does not mean that he is impeccable (incapable of sin) or inerrant (incapable of error).”

I simply cannot wrap my head around this. They’re saying that the Pope is not without sin and can commit error, except when he is declaring a definitive doctrine. To my logical mind this doesn’t make sense. How can a sinner (by definition isn’t a sin a wrongful act?) ever, EVER be infallible, regardless of exclusivity of the action (ie it only applying to official Church doctrine).

If you look at a history of the Church, there are plenty of instances where clearly the leaders of the Church were not acting as true Catholics should. The burning of heretics, the crusades, etc. Fault has been recognized, and amended. Can anyone of good faith here tell me that throughout it’s history, leaders of the Church have never made wrong decisions? Infallibility was only made official in the late 1800’s. God has given man free will, has he not? Man is imperfect, is he not? The Pope and the magisterium are men, are they not?

One of you said that Kung should have been excommunicated, but he has not. He had even apparently met the Pope for dinner some years ago. Can someone explain to me why he can make his claims and still be in good standing with the Church, whereas I cannot?

No man will ever be perfect, and a life in Christ is a never ending process (at least that’s what I was taught. For the record all of my formal education comes from Catholic institutions, from Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus from pre-k to 8th and by the Jesuits from high school through college). In this sense, shouldn’t we always be examining ourselves for improvement (by which I mean bringing us closer to God)? Why doesn’t this apply to the magisterium? The concept of infallibility seems completely contrary to a life that continuously tries to embody Christ, such as the pursuit of such is an ongoing, life-long process. Such a process is, at least in my conscience, not congruous with the absolutism of papal infallibility.

May I respectfully ask those who adhere to “humble acceptance” what their reaction would be if tomorrow the Pope declared that Islam and not Catholicism was the true religion? Or if he made a doctrine saying all Catholics must sacrifice their first born to the Church? Obviously, these things would never happen, but if they did, would your response be, “Well, gotta go by what the Pope says always!”?

Can we also talk more about the Vatican II? Why does it seem like all of that work was completely abandoned? Can someone clear this up for me?

I don’t want people to see me as a radical, I just seek answers for something that does not sit right in my conscience, that being papal infallibility.

I have to say that I agree with your post.

What matters for me is that my faith in god remains, grows and enriches my life and those around me. It matters to me that I receive the Eucharist. I love my faith. I dearly love Our Lord. I also question the teachings of some of the vaticans works over the years. I honestly believe that because one is catholic doesn’t mean we should agree 100% with the churches views, teachings etc.

I have said it before. The church today is not what it was when Jesus started it 2k years ago.

Hans Küng on Pope Benedict:
Quote:
He has developed a peculiar pomposity that doesn’t fit the man I and others knew, who once walked around in a Basque-style cap and was relatively modest. Now he’s frequently to be seen wrapped in golden splendour and swank. By his own volition he wears the crown of a 19th-century pope, and has even had the garments of the Medici pope Leo X remade for him
Unquote

Just one of the thing I strongly disagree with. Riches while others in the faith suffer in poverty.

 

[Apologista]

It is the general concept of papal infallibility that I struggle with. I don’t want to bog down the thread with specific issues like optional celibacy for priests, birth control, homosexual marriage, etc.

---

I simply cannot wrap my head around this. They’re saying that the Pope is not without sin and can commit error, except when he is declaring a definitive doctrine. To my logical mind this doesn’t make sense. How can a sinner (by definition isn’t a sin a wrongful act?) ever, EVER be infallible, regardless of exclusivity of the action (ie it only applying to official Church doctrine).

If you look at a history of the Church, there are plenty of instances where clearly the leaders of the Church were not acting as true Catholics should. The burning of heretics, the crusades, etc. Fault has been recognized, and amended. Can anyone of good faith here tell me that throughout it’s history, leaders of the Church have never made wrong decisions? Infallibility was only made official in the late 1800’s. God has given man free will, has he not? Man is imperfect, is he not? The Pope and the magisterium are men, are they not?

---

No man will ever be perfect, and a life in Christ is a never ending process (at least that’s what I was taught. For the record all of my formal education comes from Catholic institutions, from Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus from pre-k to 8th and by the Jesuits from high school through college). In this sense, shouldn’t we always be examining ourselves for improvement (by which I mean bringing us closer to God)? Why doesn’t this apply to the magisterium? The concept of infallibility seems completely contrary to a life that continuously tries to embody Christ, such as the pursuit of such is an ongoing, life-long process. Such a process is, at least in my conscience, not congruous with the absolutism of papal infallibility.

May I respectfully ask those who adhere to “humble acceptance” what their reaction would be if tomorrow the Pope declared that Islam and not Catholicism was the true religion? Or if he made a doctrine saying all Catholics must sacrifice their first born to the Church? Obviously, these things would never happen, but if they did, would your response be, “Well, gotta go by what the Pope says always!”?

This is not going to answer every question you have, but Jesus Himself promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church and not let the gates of Hell prevail against it. The way I look at it, we have had “bad Popes” and some Popes let their decisions be overly influenced by the politics or customs of the times in which they lived. But the overall trend has been greater holiness and insight into what humanity needs. Not always what it wants (e.g. birth control, abortion, homosexual “marriages” - or in recent times, more capital punishment).

I trust that that same Holy Spirit would prevent a Pope from switching Catholicism to Islam or demanding sacrifice of the firstborn (especially since it’s against abortion! ). Formation of a priest who becomes a bishop who becomes a cardinal able to elect a Pope - and whoever becomes Pope - doesn’t occur in a vacuum. A man is not going to go all that way with crazy ideas and not get weeded out long before he has a shot at the Papacy. Especially not in modern times.

Finally - I would offer one additional point. Very often I hear people talk of these things as if there is only two options - Agree or disagree - They seem to forget a third option…humble acceptance.
Humble acceptance does not require me to make the decision. As a Catholic, I begin from a point of acceptance. Thus, in matters I have not studied and/or don’t fully understand, the burden of proof lies with on the side of “disbelief”…In other words, if a doctrine cannot be clearly proven wrong then I assume it to be right.
After all - why would I be Catholic if I did not think the Church to be instituted of Christ and Spirit guided? Why should I remain Catholic, if I feel that the Church has to prove to ME before I believe…
And who am I to require this of my God and His Church…

Just some thoughts…

Peace
James

Good post and I especially like what I took the liberty of bolding - I’ve tried to get this across to friends of mine who are struggling with Church teaching.

 

[PaulinePresbytr]

It is the general concept of papal infallibility that I struggle with. I don’t want to bog down the thread with specific issues like optional celibacy for priests, birth control, homosexual marriage, etc.

Copied from catholic.com quick answers:
“Papal infallibility means that the pope is protected from error when he “proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals” (CCC 891). This does not mean that he is impeccable (incapable of sin) or inerrant (incapable of error).”

I simply cannot wrap my head around this. They’re saying that the Pope is not without sin and can commit error, except when he is declaring a definitive doctrine. To my logical mind this doesn’t make sense. How can a sinner (by definition isn’t a sin a wrongful act?) ever, EVER be infallible, regardless of exclusivity of the action (ie it only applying to official Church doctrine).

If you look at a history of the Church, there are plenty of instances where clearly the leaders of the Church were not acting as true Catholics should. The burning of heretics, the crusades, etc. Fault has been recognized, and amended. Can anyone of good faith here tell me that throughout it’s history, leaders of the Church have never made wrong decisions? Infallibility was only made official in the late 1800’s. God has given man free will, has he not? Man is imperfect, is he not? The Pope and the magisterium are men, are they not?

One of you said that Kung should have been excommunicated, but he has not. He had even apparently met the Pope for dinner some years ago. Can someone explain to me why he can make his claims and still be in good standing with the Church, whereas I cannot?

No man will ever be perfect, and a life in Christ is a never ending process (at least that’s what I was taught. For the record all of my formal education comes from Catholic institutions, from Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus from pre-k to 8th and by the Jesuits from high school through college). In this sense, shouldn’t we always be examining ourselves for improvement (by which I mean bringing us closer to God)? Why doesn’t this apply to the magisterium? The concept of infallibility seems completely contrary to a life that continuously tries to embody Christ, such as the pursuit of such is an ongoing, life-long process. Such a process is, at least in my conscience, not congruous with the absolutism of papal infallibility.

May I respectfully ask those who adhere to “humble acceptance” what their reaction would be if tomorrow the Pope declared that Islam and not Catholicism was the true religion? Or if he made a doctrine saying all Catholics must sacrifice their first born to the Church? Obviously, these things would never happen, but if they did, would your response be, “Well, gotta go by what the Pope says always!”?

Can we also talk more about the Vatican II? Why does it seem like all of that work was completely abandoned? Can someone clear this up for me?

I don’t want people to see me as a radical, I just seek answers for something that does not sit right in my conscience, that being papal infallibility.

Papal ineffability only exists when something is said Ex Cathedra, which has been done once

The idea that the pope is primary over the other leaders of the church is one of the major things that led to the reformation, which attempted to restore the church to what it originally was but ultimately had to separate from Rome

 

[Elizabeth502]

There’s a whole lot to address in the opening post, but this part jumped out at me as being so fundamentally ill-informed for an “argument.”

It also seems to me that the core principle that all catholics agree upon (whether they are devout, cafeteria or cultural) is the healing power of Christ’s love, and how we need to embody that love in our lives. Was not Jesus considered a radical and a heretic amongst the Jews? Didn’t he challenge the irrationality of certain traditional teachings? Can catholics do the same without being condemned by the Church?.

The catechesis you received was that the core of Catholicism is the healing power of Christ’s love?

This is indistinguishable from Protestantism. In fact, Protestants might even say, that Christ’s Divinity is the core of Christianity. However, even Christ’s Divinity is not the distinguishing core of Catholicism. That would not distinguish identifiable Catholics from identifiable non-Catholic Christians.

Who taught you?

Do you know what the four marks of The (Catholic!) Church are?

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

There’s a whole lot to address in the opening post, but this part jumped out at me as being so fundamentally ill-informed for an “argument.”

The catechesis you received was that the core of Catholicism is the healing power of Christ’s love?

This is indistinguishable from Protestantism. In fact, Protestants might even say, that Christ’s Divinity is the core of Christianity. However, even Christ’s Divinity is not the distinguishing core of Catholicism. That would not distinguish identifiable Catholics from identifiable non-Catholic Christians.

Who taught you?

Do you know what the four marks of The (Catholic!) Church are?

You severely misinterpreted me, or perhaps I poorly represented myself. I was not talking about Christ’s divinity, I was talking about loving the true God with all your heart, and loving your neighbor as yourself.

And, to my understanding, the four marks are reiterated at every mass. One holy, catholic and apostolic Church…but I don’t impress myself for knowing that, many non-Catholics probably know that, as anyone who has been to a Catholic mass and payed attention would.

As I stated in another post, all of my formal education was from Catholic institutions. The sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus taught me from pre-k through 8th grade, and the Jesuits taught me from high school through college.

Also, it is not my intention to argue, but to understand.

 

[JRKH]

It is the general concept of papal infallibility that I struggle with. I don’t want to bog down the thread with specific issues like optional celibacy for priests, birth control, homosexual marriage, etc.

I agree that it is good to stick to one topic per thread.

Copied from catholic.com quick answers:
“Papal infallibility means that the pope is protected from error when he “proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals” (CCC 891). This does not mean that he is impeccable (incapable of sin) or inerrant (incapable of error).”

I simply cannot wrap my head around this. They’re saying that the Pope is not without sin and can commit error, except when he is declaring a definitive doctrine. To my logical mind this doesn’t make sense. How can a sinner (by definition isn’t a sin a wrongful act?) ever, EVER be infallible, regardless of exclusivity of the action (ie it only applying to official Church doctrine).

Perhaps a rather simple analogy might help…Suppose that you have a child. In raising this child you know that you have to lay down certain rules and try to pass on certain truths. The rules you lay down and the truths you pass on come, in part, from your own mistakes as well as from conclusions that you have come to from study, observation and conversation with others.
The wisdom you pass on is true, good and valid regardless of your own personal lack of impeccability or inerrancy. If the child embraces it, it will be most helpful to them. If the child rejects it, they will be condemned to repeat mistakes you (or people you have known) have made and their life will be more difficult.

In like manner, while a pope can commit sin, and make personal error - just like the rest of us - he can also study, observe and converse with others to prayerfully determine the Will of the Holy Spirit for the Church.

Also - I would like to ask you to consider the grave responsibility attached to being the Vicar of Christ. The account to which he will be held at judgement and therefore the great care he will exercise in discharging this aspect of his office.
Too often it seems that we fail to consider this aspect of the matter.

If you look at a history of the Church, there are plenty of instances where clearly the leaders of the Church were not acting as true Catholics should. The burning of heretics, the crusades, etc. Fault has been recognized, and amended. Can anyone of good faith here tell me that throughout it’s history, leaders of the Church have never made wrong decisions? Infallibility was only made official in the late 1800’s. God has given man free will, has he not? Man is imperfect, is he not? The Pope and the magisterium are men, are they not?

No - no one here will suggest that the Church has not had it’s share of hard times and real “stinkers” in high office…But you know what? To me that only makes it all the more incredible that the Teachings of the Church have remained so true to the Gospel for 2 millenia.

I ask you though to read the Gospels and look at how imperfect were the 12 who Jesus entrusted with the Church…Peter the hothead who denied Jesus three times, the other Apostles disputed who would be the greatest in the Kingdom. Thomas refused to believe the others about the resurrection, Paul took issue with Peter over Peter’s actions etc…

Yet…He said, first to Peter, and later to all of the Apostles, “Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven and whatever you Loose on Earth shall have been loosed in Heaven.” Jesus promised them the Paraclete - the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth.
If Jesus figured He could build HIS Church on this bunch…I have no problem trusting them.

One of you said that Kung should have been excommunicated, but he has not. He had even apparently met the Pope for dinner some years ago. Can someone explain to me why he can make his claims and still be in good standing with the Church, whereas I cannot?

I know nothing of the man or the matter…but If he has had his teaching faculties removed, this should be sufficient for us to dismiss him as a guide. As for the matter of being excommunicated, I leave that to him and his superiors.
As to whether you can claim to be in good standing with the Church…I think that you would need to likewise a) not teach and b) submit yourself to the discipline of the Church and c) do more studying on the matters troubling you.

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

No man will ever be perfect, and a life in Christ is a never ending process (at least that’s what I was taught.

Agreed - but of course perfection is what we are called to (Mt 5:48)

For the record all of my formal education comes from Catholic institutions, from Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus from pre-k to 8th and by the Jesuits from high school through college). In this sense, shouldn’t we always be examining ourselves for improvement (by which I mean bringing us closer to God)?

Yes we should always seek to improve.

Why doesn’t this apply to the magisterium? The concept of infallibility seems completely contrary to a life that continuously tries to embody Christ, such as the pursuit of such is an ongoing, life-long process. Such a process is, at least in my conscience, not congruous with the absolutism of papal infallibility.

You lost me here. Those who make up the Magisterium of the Church are called to improvement the same as us. I see no conflict between personal failings and the viability of the teachings of the Magisterium. In fact I see great advantage in it.
It is much easier for individuals to fall into error than it is for the group because the group is able to test various ideas and viewpoints, ferret out error and raise up Truth.

May I respectfully ask those who adhere to “humble acceptance” what their reaction would be if tomorrow the Pope declared that Islam and not Catholicism was the true religion? Or if he made a doctrine saying all Catholics must sacrifice their first born to the Church? Obviously, these things would never happen, but if they did, would your response be, “Well, gotta go by what the Pope says always!”?

Since your examples (by your own admittance) would never happen I won’t address them specifically…but
If the pope were to issue some highly troubling decree, something that comes (apparently) out of left field with no prior discussion…I would seek to study on the matter and watch to see what the response of the rest of the Magisterium is.

Can we also talk more about the Vatican II? Why does it seem like all of that work was completely abandoned? Can someone clear this up for me?

A lot of which work? I have not read all of the Council’s documents but from what I have read, I see nothing having been abandoned.
Now there have been various experiments undertaken “in the spirit of the council” that were never decreed and some/many of these have been abandoned…But as for what the council actually produced…I don’t think anything has been abandoned…

I don’t want people to see me as a radical, I just seek answers for something that does not sit right in my conscience, that being papal infallibility.

I don’t see you as a radical. I just hope that we can be of some help

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Ignatius…
I’m not sure if I am understanding you correctly here…but a couple of concerns…questions…
You have expressed the idea that our primary goal is to grow closer to God - which is certainly true - and that you have trouble with some Church teaching - principally the authority of the magisterium as personified in the dogma of infallibility.
What I don’t understand is how the one effects the other? How does infallibility negatively effect your ability to grow closer to God?

Secondly - if you choose to personally “override” the teachings of the Magisterium…what foundation will you use to inform your own personal “infallible” decisions?

Oh - and by the way…WELCOME TO THE BOARDS

Peace
James

 

[PRmerger]

It also seems to me that the core principle that all catholics agree upon (whether they are devout, cafeteria or cultural) is the healing power of Christ’s love, and how we need to embody that love in our lives.

True, this.

And the only way you know this is because the Catholic Church discerned this and proclaimed it to you.

So my question to you is: how do you know that the Church got it right on this, but is wrong on [fill in the blank]?