How much can a Catholic disagree with the Church?

[PRmerger]

II 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).

I think if you can understand how St. Peter, who was a sinner, who denied Jesus three times, could write some encyclicals that were inerrant, and thus demonstrated his charism of infallibility, then you can apply it to the present successor of Peter.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

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

The absolutism of papal infallibility fills me with doubt. Your analogy was powerful, but I can’t shake the creeping doubt comes to my mind. What if a parent was misguided in one of the truths or values they tried to instill in their children? Isn’t that a distinct possibility?

I don’t believe that papal infallibility directly interferes with me becoming closer to God; what I’m trying to find out is whether my disagreement with it is interfering with me becoming closer to God.

I’m not sure I trust myself enough to override the teachings of the Magisterium, but at the same time I’m not sure if I can fully trust them if they believe their teachings can never be wrong or modified. Which leads me to a question, if one pope makes a new doctrine or dogma with his infallibility, can his successor (whether immediate or down the line) use their respective infallibility to override his predecessors decision?

Kung was stripped of his teaching but remains a priest ordained in the Catholic Church. His main assertion when it comes to infallibility is that it is a man-made structure, and does not come from God. When I think about it, I can’t help but agree with him.

Also, many thanks for your welcome and I truly appreciate your responses, they’ve been helpful and thought-provoking.

---

"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]?" - PRmerger

Because this message resonates with me. It fills me with hope, it lights a fire in my soul. Which brings me to my next question; if the Holy Spirit guides the Church, why doesn’t that include the laity? When I hear “love your God before all others and love your neighbors as yourself,” that is the core of how I want to live my life. When I hear “the pope can never be wrong when it comes to doctrine or dogma,” I become skeptical. At least part of this doubt is rooted in the less glorious moments of the Church’s history.

 

[JRKH]

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]?

I think if you can understand how St. Peter, who was a sinner, who denied Jesus three times, could write some encyclicals that were inerrant, and thus demonstrated his charism of infallibility, then you can apply it to the present successor of Peter.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

James, your comment on considering the extreme difficulty that entails being the Bishop of Rome resonates with me, and it is truthful that I hadn’t really considered this. But I still can’t help but feel like the absolutism of the principle prevents any sort of reflective insight, or want or need of improvement. Is there not a possibility that the Pope or member of the Magisterium allowed their personal short-comings to be reflected in their teachings?

Some people have also cited scriptural evidence for papal infallibility. If this is such, why was it not defined dogmatically until the first Vatican council of 1870? If the absolute dominance of the Magisterium of the Church was so important, why was it not included for more than 1500 years?

Also, if the Holy Spirit fills the hierarchy of the Church with guidance, doesn’t it also inspire and guide the faithful laity? I’m not suggesting that the hierarchy completely gives in to the will of it’s adherents, but certainly should be open to discussion with them. I feel as if papal infallibility closes the door on all discussion.

 

[Elizabeth502]

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.

Again, that is the core of The Law, which was fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus Himself quoted the above as being “the fullness of the law.” However, that severely stunts the core of Catholicism, because Jesus extended His life into the life of the Church. We are an apostolic Church (yes, one of those four marks). The way that love of God plus neighbor is articulated and lived and taught and assented to is through the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church on earth which Jesus founded.

Otherwise, we are indistinguishable from other Christian sects, which rely on Scripture (and “private interpretation” of Scripture), bypassing the Magisterium which is the repository and disseminator of scriptural teaching and moral interpretation of Christ’s words. So either we do or do not believe that the institution of the Roman Catholic Church has moral authority, conferred upon it by Jesus Himself.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

What I am saying, or rather, what Mark Shea is saying, is that asking “How much can a Catholic disagree with the Church” is the exact wrong question for any believer to ask.

It betrays an Adult Minimum Daily Requirement Christianity.

It compares to a lover asking, “How much can I disagree with you and still be considered your lover?”

 

[PRmerger]

Also, if the Holy Spirit fills the hierarchy of the Church with guidance, doesn’t it also inspire and guide the faithful laity?

Where do you get this belief from, Timothy?

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

What I am saying, or rather, what Mark Shea is saying, is that asking “How much can a Catholic disagree with the Church” is the exact wrong question for any believer to ask.

It betrays an Adult Minimum Daily Requirement Christianity.

It compares to a lover asking, “How much can I disagree with you and still be considered your lover?”

I still don’t understand, with Hans Kung once against being my example (sorry to be so hung up on this guy). He blatantly disagrees with the Church, and believes the Church should reform on many issues that have been controversial (to say the least) amongst the adherents of Catholicism. Things like accepting loving relationships between homosexuals, allowing reasonable birth control, optional celibacy, things like that. These are HUGE issues, it’s not like he’s nit-picking a few tiny things. I’d just like to reiterate that I don’t necessarily agree with him on all these things, but our views on papal infallibility are attuned.

The point is, if he can be so at odds with many Church teachings, and not be excommunicated or have an anathema placed on him, doesn’t that mean others can disagree and not be doomed? His teaching faculties were removed, but his priestly faculties were not. He is still a Catholic priest in good standing with the Church. Does my personal salvation depend on my complete, unquestioning faithfulness to the hierarchy of the Church, or does it depend on my love of the Lord and how I choose to live my life on this Earth?

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

Where do you get this belief from, Timothy?

I suppose a basis for this belief can be in the Saints, many of whom were not ordained ministers but lay people. Why would the Holy Spirit choose to only exclusively exhibit It’s majestic powers to the Magisterium? Does it not fill all of us with love and a willingness for God? I know that ultimately the choice is up to us, that we have a choice. Really it’s more of an ongoing struggle between our own humanistic imperfections and the search for God’s grace, but isn’t that beautiful struggle open to all mankind?

 

[Loyal_J]

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.

The Catholic Church has a hierarchy of truths. Doctrine declared ex cathedra or by an ecumenical council must be followed to not be a heretic. Doctrine by a pope in an encyclical (document published by pope on some doctrine) must be given the benefit of the doubt that it’s true unless serious thought-through evidence proves the opposite. The rest is pretty up to each person.

The infallible (must be believed) parts of an ecumenical council are the parts where there is an excommunication attached to not believing it by the council, or when it says something like “teach and declare” that _______.

There are 21 ecumenical councils. The ecumenical council of Trent made infallible much of the catholic church’s teaching on the sacraments and justification.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks for the clarifications. Let’s see what we can do from here.

The absolutism of papal infallibility fills me with doubt. Your analogy was powerful, but I can’t shake the creeping doubt comes to my mind. What if a parent was misguided in one of the truths or values they tried to instill in their children? Isn’t that a distinct possibility?

I am glad that my analogy was helpful. Your response is a good one and can certainly be valid where a parent is acting alone in passing on “wisdom” to the child.
Thankfully the Holy Father is not in this situation. The Holy Father declares nothing that has not already been widely discussed and debated and prayed over, drafted, reviewed and commented on. All of these things act in the manner of preventing error from finding it’s way into the final document.

Too many people seem to latch on to the issue of “Infallibility” and treat it in isolation without looking at the larger picture of how the Church functions. Even back to Holy Scripture we see this idea of councilior action and decision making. Mt 18:15-18 shows how disputes are taken to more people - and to the Church - for resolution. Acts 15 demonstrates how the Church acts in council to resolve doctrinal matters.
This is how it was done by the Apostles and this is how it is done today. Papal infallibility is but one aspect of the larger picture.

I don’t believe that papal infallibility directly interferes with me becoming closer to God; what I’m trying to find out is whether my disagreement with it is interfering with me becoming closer to God.

Well certainly your concern over that matter is causing a problem spiritually. Just what the devil likes. If you can come to accept papal infallibility this conflict will disperse and you are then free to continue your journey toward God. If you persist in your disbelief…then you are faced with trying to make determination on every doctrine and teaching of the Church on your own…and your spiritual journey will continue to be plagued with various doubts.
This is why another poster alluded to the Freedom that we find in accepting the teachings of the Church as from Christ Himself.

I’m not sure I trust myself enough to override the teachings of the Magisterium, but at the same time I’m not sure if I can fully trust them if they believe their teachings can never be wrong or modified.

It is good that you mistrust yourself and your own judgement. It is likewise good that you expect good explanations from the Magisterium on teachings. Trust is built on this. Of course…the good explanations that I speak of here do not need to be in complete accord with your or my views on matters - because as you say - we cannot trust ourselves either… But if the explanations are good, thorough, make good sense and are consistent with historical teachings, the laws of Love and so forth…then that is sufficient to the needs of us - poor fallible creatures ourselves - to accept that the Church has it right.

Which leads me to a question, if one pope makes a new doctrine or dogma with his infallibility, can his successor (whether immediate or down the line) use their respective infallibility to override his predecessors decision?

Again - you are looking at this thing in an isolation that does not exist. In order for a Pope to make ANY teaching (ex cathedra or not) it must be consistent with the previous doctrinal teachings of the Church. This is why the Holy Father takes so much time, care and study before issuing any teaching.

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

Kung was stripped of his teaching but remains a priest ordained in the Catholic Church. His main assertion when it comes to infallibility is that it is a man-made structure, and does not come from God. When I think about it, I can’t help but agree with him.

So - Kung (and you) are more correct than the whole magisterium of the Catholic Church - basing the dogma on the Holy Scripture and Apostolic tradition?
With all due respect, this makes no sense.

Consider this from a historical reference…
The Protestant reformation took the “infallibility” of the Church and put in the hands of individuals. What has been the result? Order? Sound teaching? “Spirit Guided” unity?
They have been at it now for 500 years and the number of independent non-Catholic Christian “churches” continues to grow not shrink.
Even some of the older “mainline” protestant denominations have changed foundational teachings and have had splits as a result.

Compare this to the Ancient Church which, with it’s hierarchical structure and councilior model (based on the bible), has had but one split - between East and West.

When I was studying these matters I found that the Church led me to the Bible, and the Bible led me right back to the Church. I also found that History demonstrates the correctness of the RC (and EO) model over the “protestant model”…

Also, many thanks for your welcome and I truly appreciate your responses, they’ve been helpful and thought-provoking.

You are welcome. What I offer is what I have thought about myself.

"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]?" - PRmerger

Because this message resonates with me. It fills me with hope, it lights a fire in my soul. Which brings me to my next question; if the Holy Spirit guides the Church, why doesn’t that include the laity? When I hear “love your God before all others and love your neighbors as yourself,” that is the core of how I want to live my life. When I hear “the pope can never be wrong when it comes to doctrine or dogma,” I become skeptical. At least part of this doubt is rooted in the less glorious moments of the Church’s history.

The Holy Spirit DOES guide the Laity…However, there needs to be a way for each individual to discern that they ARE being guided by the Holy Spirit and not some other Spirit…This is where “Church” comes in and we are instructed by our Lord and Savior to “Tell it to the Church and to Listen to the Church” (Mt 18:15-18) because it is “*that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, *” (Eph 3:10-11)
And also we know that it is the Church which is the Pillar and foundation of Truth…( 1 Tim 3:15)

Peace
James

 

[Loyal_J]

Here’s a link to the text of the council of trent on justification. Note: anathema is an extreme form of excommunication.

For example Canon 9 of the council:
“If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.”

“Canon 20.
If anyone says that a man who is justified and however perfect is not bound to observe the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe,[122] as if the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of observing the commandments, let him be anathema.”

 

[JRKH]

James, your comment on considering the extreme difficulty that entails being the Bishop of Rome resonates with me, and it is truthful that I hadn’t really considered this.

Yes - I’m afraid that too few (even Catholics) ever do.

But I still can’t help but feel like the absolutism of the principle prevents any sort of reflective insight, or want or need of improvement. Is there not a possibility that the Pope or member of the Magisterium allowed their personal short-comings to be reflected in their teachings?

As I have stated elsewhere…this is highly unlikely since nothing happens in a vacuum. Things are discussed, studied and prayed over. The grave responsibility attached to such things as well as the need and desirability of (name removed by moderator)ut from the larger magisterium (and other experts) works against such a thing happening.
Then of course we have the Holy Spirit’s guidance in these matters.

Some people have also cited scriptural evidence for papal infallibility. If this is such, why was it not defined dogmatically until the first Vatican council of 1870? If the absolute dominance of the Magisterium of the Church was so important, why was it not included for more than 1500 years?

It is not uncommon for the Church to not define things dogmatically until it becomes truly necessary for the peace of the Church. Also - it is highly desirable to have a consensus among the bishops on dogmatic matters rather than a simple “majority” etc. So the Church tends to work rather slowly and prayerfully on these kinds of things.

Also, if the Holy Spirit fills the hierarchy of the Church with guidance, doesn’t it also inspire and guide the faithful laity? I’m not suggesting that the hierarchy completely gives in to the will of it’s adherents, but certainly should be open to discussion with them. I feel as if papal infallibility closes the door on all discussion.

Actually I think we were typing at the same time as I addressed this in my previous post. The Holy spirit DOES guide the laity but it is within the larger Church community that Truth is found and error exposed.

As to the last comment…Yes papal infallibility does close the door to further discussion…but without it…one risks greater confusion.
The pope does not infallibly declare things often. but when he does it is because it seems good to the Holy Spirit, and to the Church, to have it so for the peace of the and so we can get back to “growing closer to God” instead of endlessly debating some point or other.

Peace
James

 

[PRmerger]

I still don’t understand,

Perhaps this quote and analogy may help:

From the late, great Cardinal Newman: “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer.”

Like you’re a college student in a Calc 3 class. You know the professor has the right answer. You just can’t get it. So it’s your job to wrestle with the problem…until you come to the same answer as the professor.

Perhaps this paradigm may help: when we disagree with Christ on a particular issue, we know that the problem is with ourselves and our understandings, not with Christ.

And, of course, this means, by extension, the Church (substitute it for Christ in the above paradigm. For there is no separation between Christ, the Head, and His Body, the Church. And the ONLY way you know anything at all about what Christ said is because the Church taught you this.)

One other thought: everything you know about Christ comes from the Church. So if you believe, say, that our sins are forgiven because of Christ, it’s because the Church told you this.

 

[PRmerger]

Timothy:

Why do you think that the Church gets it right on [issue A], but gets it wrong on [issue B]?

What’s the determining factor in whether the Church gets it right? Is it based on how much the Church happens to agree with your own personal opinions?

If this is the case, then I submit that you are creating a god in your own image, rather than conforming your image to Christ’s.

IOW: if there’s no belief that you’ve said, “You know, I personally think it should be this way, but the Church and Christ have declared it to be the other way, so I need to change my point of view”, then I must sadly say that you are creating a god in your own image.

 

[Mark121359]

(Cont)

So - Kung (and you) are more correct than the whole magisterium of the Catholic Church - basing the dogma on the Holy Scripture and Apostolic tradition?
With all due respect, this makes no sense.

Consider this from a historical reference…
The Protestant reformation took the “infallibility” of the Church and put in the hands of individuals. What has been the result? Order? Sound teaching? “Spirit Guided” unity?
They have been at it now for 500 years and the number of independent non-Catholic Christian “churches” continues to grow not shrink.
Even some of the older “mainline” protestant denominations have changed foundational teachings and have had splits as a result.

Compare this to the Ancient Church which, with it’s hierarchical structure and councilior model (based on the bible), has had but one split - between East and West.

When I was studying these matters I found that the Church led me to the Bible, and the Bible led me right back to the Church. I also found that History demonstrates the correctness of the RC (and EO) model over the “protestant model”…

You are welcome. What I offer is what I have thought about myself.

The Holy Spirit DOES guide the Laity…However, there needs to be a way for each individual to discern that they ARE being guided by the Holy Spirit and not some other Spirit…This is where “Church” comes in and we are instructed by our Lord and Savior to “Tell it to the Church and to Listen to the Church” (Mt 18:15-18) because it is “*that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, *” (Eph 3:10-11)
And also we know that it is the Church which is the Pillar and foundation of Truth…( 1 Tim 3:15)

Peace
James

James, I would just like to say that all of your answers on this matter have been well thought through and excellent! I’m learning a lot myself.

Peace, Mark

 

[johnnyc176]

James, I would just like to say that all of your answers on this matter have been well thought through and excellent! I’m learning a lot myself.

Peace, Mark

Yes and PRmerger too.

 

[Mark121359]

Yes and PRmerger too.

You bet! And others as well!

Peace, Mark

 

[PRmerger]

IHe is still a Catholic priest in good standing with the Church.

What do you mean, “in good standing”?

Does my personal salvation depend on my complete, unquestioning faithfulness to the hierarchy of the Church, or does it depend on my love of the Lord and how I choose to live my life on this Earth?

Again, the wrong question to ask for any Christian.

You wouldn’t want your wife to ask you, “Does my marriage to you depend upon my complete, unquestionable faithfulness to you? What can I that I like, that wouldn’t estrange me from you? Can I go out with the girls 3 days a week, or only 2 days? Can I take care of the children until 5pm, then give them to you to raise? Will that still make me a wife in good standing with you?”

:nope: