I just cannot get over this one issue...and it's keeping me from being Catholic

[jinc1019]

I’m glad that you found my post to be helpful. I feel a bit of kinship because I went through this myself.
As an aid to your concerns about the Church being made up of fallible people and always having the right solution etc…I will add just one more Bible passage (well maybe two)…
The first is Mt 23:1-3. In this passage, Jesus is addressing his disciples on the authority of the Jewish leadership and he says:
Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
The Scribes and Pharisees sat on the seat of Moses. The Holy Father, and the Bishops in communion with him sit on the chair (cathedra) of Peter, who received authority to bind and loose. Jesus founded his Church upon fallible humans but promised the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.
Elsewhere, in Scripture, we have St Paul telling Timothy in 1 Tim 3:15:
if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
As we begin to tie all of these things together, a picture emerges of great authority AND great responsibility.
The Church is the Pillar and the Bulwark…
It has authority to bind and loose…
It has Christ’s protection and the protection of the Holy Spirit - even if individuals sin…

To address the matter of sinful humans a bit…
“Church” comes from the Greek, ekklesia which is defined in Strongs as:
a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
So what do we gather from this? That, even though we might look to the Pope in a singular authoritative manner, the Pope never really stands alone in matters of teaching. Other bishops, writers, theologians, teachers, historians, etc…ALL contribute prayerfully and in community to the decisions of what is “bound” or “loosed”.
Certainly the biases (either honest or self-serving) of individuals will influence their particular position, but in bringing together many different viewpoints and sorting through them prayerfully, the Holy Father, along with the whole magisterium can - and does - come up with the best of all possible teachings.
Sometimes we have a hard time understanding the teaching do to the many complexities, but if we truly seek understanding, it can come.

So - In Summary,
Jesus chose 12 imperfect humans and gave them authority. They in turn and using the granted authority, passed their authority on to others and so down through the centuries till today.

oh - yea - one more thing…If you would like to see the whole “Binding and loosing” thing in action in Scripture, read Acts Chapter 15. In this you will find the Church, acting in council, to make a decision for the entirety of the Church on a matter that obviously had not been clearly spelled out by Jesus.

Peace
James

James, thank you again for your response and thank you to everyone else as well. This dialogue has been immensely helpful. I would like to say first that I agree with nearly everything you said and the Biblical passages were quite helpful and insightful. However, the personal sins you mention don’t explain the immoral Chuch policies that have been adopted at certain times in history…These immoral Church policies were not just opinions by members of the Church or individual sins, they were actual policies the Church enacted. See the post above for examples of what I am talking about but I am not sure how to get over this…If the Church can create clearly immoral Church policies, then that means that outside of central teachings (which really are the most important), the Church does the best that it can to be Christ’s body on earth but it is still an imperect body capable of beign wrong baout birth control and other similar issues.

 

[jinc1019]

If we take the comparison of the Church teaching and our civil government and the law consider this…

In Law, the government or the courts can change certain laws and even reinterpret laws, BUT that fact does not mean that the law currently in effect is any less binding on the citizens.
If the government changes a law, does that mean it was “wrong” in the past? Perhaps, but then again, perhaps not. There can be many reasons for redefining a law in a given area.

That said, there are certain “Laws” that cannot be changed…at least no easily…and those are the amendments to the constitution. In particular the Bill of Rights can be seen as “Dogmatic” statements of our nation and as such cannot be “wrong” or changed…Developed, yes, discarded - no…

Similarly the Church can develop doctrine but it cannot discard it.
Of course there are some things that CAN be changed, mostly in the area of discipline - like priestly celibacy, days of fasting, holy days, things of that nature.
But these things do not constitute - it was wrong then and right now - but rather a development, or maybe a reinterpretation, of the basic and underlying Truth.

Hope that helps.

Peace
James

That does help a lot James.

 

[jinc1019]

Good evening, jinc1019,

Most of the other posts have covered most of your issues quite well, I think. I’m writing to add to what one poster said about Confession, or, the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I think it’s in the Book of James where that brother tells the faithful, “Confess your sins one unto the other.”

And, rather to stand up before the people at Mass and confess our sins, the grace of God has already empowered the priest through the Bishops who are the spiritual descesndents of the Apostles, that’s why we’re an Apostolic Church, by that grace, we can go into the confessional and in privacy obey that scripture to “Confess our sins to another” the priest being that other.

Confession is a Sacrament and Sacraments are given by God. Try not to worry about it.

God loves you,
Don

I will certaintly try not to worry about it! And just to be clear about this, this particular issue really isn’t a problem for me at all, but I was using it as an example for a larger point, which, in retrospect, may have been a mistake.

 

[jinc1019]

I would add that Peter’s vision, in the Book of Acts, when Christ tells him to “eat” the “unclean” animals, might fall into this catagory. You see, Peter proclaimed something that undid thousands of years of Jewish Teaching. By proclaiming all animals clean, this was the Church making a decision that contradicts traditional teaching. This is an example of a decision that was made outside of Scripture and Tradition, but we all believe that the Church made the right decision. The Church doesn’t need to have explicit instructions, just the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

As has been mentioned before, there are many things that the Bible doesn’t address, that does not mean that the Church shouldn’t address them. Take cloning for example, the Bible is completely silent on the matter. That does not mean that there isn’t a moral right or wrong, the Church has made its stance on the matter.

Great example and I believe the Holy Spirit can and does guide the Church in many issues, but that does not mean that the Church always listens or understands the Holy Spirit’s guidance or that the Church is right about every single decision it makes. As I mentioned previously, the Church has made numerous Church policies that were immoral. Again, I want to reiterate that NONE of these things I am referring to are central Church teachings, but they were still adopted policy by the Church.

 

[jinc1019]

This from the Catholic.Com

catholic.com/quickquestions/why-cant-women-be-ordained-priests-within-the-catholic-church

I checked out the link as suggested and I have to say, the reasoning is flawed. It essentially argues the Church does not have the authoriy to ordain women but it does have the authority to make all of the other decisions it has over the centuries, including overturning thousands of years of Jewish practices? I don’t buy that argument at all. And again, the argument that Jesus didn’t want women priests so he didn’t choose any is flawed because he didn’t choose any non-Jewish males either.

 

[edwest2]

I understand why it is difficult to accept some of what the Church teaches. For some, I think, it comes from being told over and over again that the Church does not have the authority to mandate this or proclaim that. Or that some things are simply impossible.

In the 1960s, in Catholic school, we were told: dating is OK, but sex is for marriage. A few tried to convince others that Catholics were taught “sex was dirty.” Lots of kids? I was born in the mid-1950s. The average number of kids in my neighborhood? Two. There was no birth control pill.

And how are relationships handled today? Have sex first and ask questions later? I met a beautiful woman in her early 30s. She confided that her marriage had lasted only nine months. Why? I asked. “Because I found out my husband was a nut.” Or turning sex into the glue that holds the marriage together. Uh uh.

When I dated a certain young lady, we discovered we just enjoyed each other’s company no matter what we were doing together. We enjoyed talking to each other. We did simple things together. I would ask all those reading this, married or not, did you take the time to find out if the two of you had anything in common except for a desire to have sex?

One of my closest friends married a beautiful young lady, but he told me: “If we’re lucky, we get 45 minutes together every day.” Someone has to do the cooking, the cleaning, the laundry, the shopping, the bill paying and deal with any problems with the car or the other if one gets sick.

I was there for the Sexual Revolution in the late 1960s. It was almost overnight that the rules changed. Have sex with anybody. In the early 1970s, a Hippie friend of mine told me, after I found out he was living with a woman. “I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.” Church teaching? Right out the window.

And romance? Where? The 1960s was filled with songs about love and devotion. Today? And TV? Two very attractive professionals are having lunch together and talk about their encounter from the night before. The man insists it was special. The woman blandly replies “it was just sex,” like going to the bathroom.

The Sexual Revolution was about sex, not love. A real relationship is based on trust, friendship and shared interests. A marriage is based on a long-term creation of a real relationship, sober thinking, romance and sacrificial love. Sex is a short part of any given day.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Abu]

jinc1019 #60
just because the central themes of the Church are true does not automatically mean all stances are.

No one has ever claimed that “all ‘stances’ are without error – another fallacy.
The Church has dogmas and doctrines which are Her teaching on faith and morals, of which doctrine may develop without contradiction. She has disciplines such as the one hour fast before receiving Holy Communion, but She doesn’t have “stances” or “views” or “opinions” in Her doctrine and dogma.
You know so little about Christ that you cannot know His Church. Until you are clear on Christ and His Church you will be unclear on everything else.

just because the Holy Spirit guides the Church does not mean the Church is listening to the Holy Spirit or understanding It properly.
what about the issues not directly addressed by Christ?
Maybe it only means that the central teachings will never be wrong or that the Church will never dcay so badly that hell will prevail.

There is no “maybe” – Jn 14:25: "The Holy Spirit who the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your mind whatever I have said to you.”
Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus, defined the dogma of papal infallibility in teaching faith and morals to the whole Church as Christ’s Supreme Vicar.

Isn’t the immorality in certain eras of the Church proof that the Holy Spirit is not ALWAYS being listened to?

Why continue to confuse clear teaching with human frailty? Why do you think Christ instituted seven sacraments of which one is the Sacrament of Penance?

#66 It essentially argues the Church does not have the authoriy to ordain women but it does have the authority to make all of the other decisions it has over the centuries, including overturning thousands of years of Jewish practices? I don’t buy that argument at all. And again, the argument that Jesus didn’t want women priests so he didn’t choose any is flawed because he didn’t choose any non-Jewish males either.

It is God the Son Himself who came not to destroy but to fulfill, and who instituted the New Covenant of which His Church is His Bride. That is why He instituted the priesthood at the Last Supper for His male Apostles who became in persona Christi, that is, in the very person of Christ, who becomes truly present at the consecration at Mass. It should be quite obvious why Christ chose only men as no woman could be in persona Christi. There is no flaw there, but a failure to accept reality. The fact that Jesus commanded them to “teach all nations” leaves out no one from that mandate.

There is petulance here and a huge dose of “I” trouble. The playing around with Christ’s clear mandate to teach is evidence of this.

 

[JRKH]

James, thank you again for your response and thank you to everyone else as well. This dialogue has been immensely helpful.

Happy to be of service.

I would like to say first that I agree with nearly everything you said and the Biblical passages were quite helpful and insightful

Those passages were, for me a real clincher…

However, the personal sins you mention don’t explain the immoral Church policies that have been adopted at certain times in history…These immoral Church policies were not just opinions by members of the Church or individual sins, they were actual policies the Church enacted. See the post above for examples of what I am talking about but I am not sure how to get over this…

For the purposes of our discussion, I have tried not to read too much of the other posts because I think that you and I are on a slightly different thrust…More of an overview than specifics and also more of discussion on core principles, which I believe is really what you are trying to get at.
That said, I did look at some of the items you mention above, and mostly these things deal with practices rather than Doctrines. Practice is something that can change and is also more susceptible to the sinful nature of man than is the Doctrinal principles that underpin the Church.
Also, and this is often times overlooked, is the fact that the Church, for a very long time, carried two different and oft times conflicting authorities. The first and most important is spiritual authority of Christ. The second was a temporal authority that rose out of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. It is oft times in this second role, of temporal authority that we see problems arise. For instance, the “Burning of witches”. In Truth it was not the Church who did this but the civil authority. The problem being that, in Catholic countries of the time, there was no “freedom of religion” as we know it. If the country was Catholic, then it’s citizens were Catholic and to deny the Catholic Church was treason, a capitol offense punishable by death.
It is not my intent to play down the Church’s involvement in these matters, but I would like to point out that the matters were much more complex given the socio-political structures of the times.
On the other hand, selling indulgences was clearly an abuse…Not Church doctrine, but a sinful practice.

Any of these individual examples can be a thread to themselves, and indeed have been. For myself, I do not presume to believe that my understanding of what was “Moral” in those times and places is any better than those who lived in those times and places.

Now that the Church is basically out of the “Temporal Authority” business of crowning Kings, administering the Papal States etc, she is able to do what she does best. Be a Spiritual teacher and leader.

If the Church can create clearly immoral Church policies, then that means that outside of central teachings (which really are the most important), the Church does the best that it can to be Christ’s body on earth but it is still an imperfect body capable of being wrong about birth control and other similar issues.

If we accept this premise that the Church can be wrong…What effect doe that have???
Is there any community or individual then who can be sure of being right???
Do you believe that your understandings and insights etc are better than 2000 years of developing Church teaching??
How would you or anyone “know” that they were being attentive to the Holy Spirit and making a right choice??

I don’t mean the above as an attack, and you need not respond to them if you do not wish to. The point is that we have scriptural evidence, directly from Christ’s mouth, telling us that we are to “tell it to the Church” and to “Listen to the Church”.
We have an example of this “telling” and “listening” described in Scripture.
If, after reading this in Holy Scripture, which most every Christian of any stripe will say is inerrant, we wish to second guess the infallibility of the Church, then where does that leave the authority of Scripture??
For me, if we reject the Church, then we are rejecting Scripture, for is one is unreliable, the other is as well.

I can’t speak to decisions, practices etc that occurred 500 plus years ago. It was an extremely different world back then. What I can do is look at the Church today, at Holy Scripture, and say - Yup, I see the authority - Yup, Jesus gives authority to His Church - Yup the Church has the real presence - Yup that is where I need to be…and if there are things that I don’t grasp, understand or whatever, I’ll look into them as I go along…

but I cannot, in good conscience deny the Scriptural authority given the Church by Christ. I cannot deny the Real presence in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar and if I had nothing else to go on, that would be enough to submit myself to Christ in His Church.

Peace
James

 

[Castello]

I will boil it down to a question… who is smarter, God or Steve Jobs?

Steve Jobs knew he would not always be there and there was no way he could write down every single thing that the company would need in the future so he set up people who could do that.

I think God is a little bit better at planning than Steve Jobs.

 

[jinc1019]

Happy to be of service.

Those passages were, for me a real clincher…

For the purposes of our discussion, I have tried not to read too much of the other posts because I think that you and I are on a slightly different thrust…More of an overview than specifics and also more of discussion on core principles, which I believe is really what you are trying to get at.
That said, I did look at some of the items you mention above, and mostly these things deal with practices rather than Doctrines. Practice is something that can change and is also more susceptible to the sinful nature of man than is the Doctrinal principles that underpin the Church.
Also, and this is often times overlooked, is the fact that the Church, for a very long time, carried two different and oft times conflicting authorities. The first and most important is spiritual authority of Christ. The second was a temporal authority that rose out of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. It is oft times in this second role, of temporal authority that we see problems arise. For instance, the “Burning of witches”. In Truth it was not the Church who did this but the civil authority. The problem being that, in Catholic countries of the time, there was no “freedom of religion” as we know it. If the country was Catholic, then it’s citizens were Catholic and to deny the Catholic Church was treason, a capitol offense punishable by death.
It is not my intent to play down the Church’s involvement in these matters, but I would like to point out that the matters were much more complex given the socio-political structures of the times.
On the other hand, selling indulgences was clearly an abuse…Not Church doctrine, but a sinful practice.

Any of these individual examples can be a thread to themselves, and indeed have been. For myself, I do not presume to believe that my understanding of what was “Moral” in those times and places is any better than those who lived in those times and places.

Now that the Church is basically out of the “Temporal Authority” business of crowning Kings, administering the Papal States etc, she is able to do what she does best. Be a Spiritual teacher and leader.

If we accept this premise that the Church can be wrong…What effect doe that have???
Is there any community or individual then who can be sure of being right???
Do you believe that your understandings and insights etc are better than 2000 years of developing Church teaching??
How would you or anyone “know” that they were being attentive to the Holy Spirit and making a right choice??

I don’t mean the above as an attack, and you need not respond to them if you do not wish to. The point is that we have scriptural evidence, directly from Christ’s mouth, telling us that we are to “tell it to the Church” and to “Listen to the Church”.
We have an example of this “telling” and “listening” described in Scripture.
If, after reading this in Holy Scripture, which most every Christian of any stripe will say is inerrant, we wish to second guess the infallibility of the Church, then where does that leave the authority of Scripture??
For me, if we reject the Church, then we are rejecting Scripture, for is one is unreliable, the other is as well.

I can’t speak to decisions, practices etc that occurred 500 plus years ago. It was an extremely different world back then. What I can do is look at the Church today, at Holy Scripture, and say - Yup, I see the authority - Yup, Jesus gives authority to His Church - Yup the Church has the real presence - Yup that is where I need to be…and if there are things that I don’t grasp, understand or whatever, I’ll look into them as I go along…

but I cannot, in good conscience deny the Scriptural authority given the Church by Christ. I cannot deny the Real presence in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar and if I had nothing else to go on, that would be enough to submit myself to Christ in His Church.

Peace
James

James,
The responses you just gave are precisely what I was looking for (in conjunction with the previous comments you have left and previous statements by other very helpful members). After doing some research, I can accept your argument about temporal authority and the Catholic Church. You are also correct in your approach of my initial comment, which was never meant to create so many different discussions on individual issues, but instead, was meant to be about the authority of the Church and how that relates to doctrine.

I guess one additional question then is this: What exactly determines what is Church doctrine and what is just a position of the Church or its members? This I think is why I am having so many problems dealing with this issue of authority. How do I know when something is supposed to be an infallible teaching and when something is supposed to be a opinion or current practice easily capable of changing?

 

[Castello]

. How do I know when something is supposed to be an infallible teaching and when something is supposed to be a opinion or current practice easily capable of changing?

Pick up a copy of Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”.

 

[JRKH]

James,
The responses you just gave are precisely what I was looking for (in conjunction with the previous comments you have left and previous statements by other very helpful members). After doing some research, I can accept your argument about temporal authority and the Catholic Church. You are also correct in your approach of my initial comment, which was never meant to create so many different discussions on individual issues, but instead, was meant to be about the authority of the Church and how that relates to doctrine.

I so glad. These are things that I went through myself upon my return to the Church a few years ago so I thought I might have a bit of a handle on where you were coming from.

I guess one additional question then is this: What exactly determines what is Church doctrine and what is just a position of the Church or its members? This I think is why I am having so many problems dealing with this issue of authority. How do I know when something is supposed to be an infallible teaching and when something is supposed to be a opinion or current practice easily capable of changing?

I would suggest that you get a hold of a copy of the Catholic Church Catechism. It contains much more “Teaching” than “Practice”. It also contains a lot of references to source documents.
There is an online version of the Catechism HERE that I find very helpful in looking things up…There is a search function at the bottom of the page for the catechism.
Source documents can be accessed at the Vatican website.

But do try to get a hard copy of the catechism as I think that will be most helpful.

Castello’s suggestion should also be very useful.

Peace
James

 

[donsnow]

I agree with everything you said EXCEPT that the Church can never err when the Pope speaks for the seat of Peter. Why? Because the Church has made immoral proclamations as a matter of Church policy that extended WELL BEYOND simple opinon and individual moral indiscretion. The Church sold indulgences as a matter of policy, the Church sanctioned the burning of witches in Spain and in other countries…there is no denying the Church made immoral decisions as a matter of Church policy and that cannot be considered just the personal opinion of the Pope, it was the approved policy of the Church. Why is it that the Church can be fallible on issues not central to Church teachings? It doesn’t diminish the Church to accept that the Pope is a human and, like all humans, capable of making mistakes and doing immoral things. And numerous members of the Church, bishops, cardinals, etc. have done the same thing and used their position in the Church to make Church policy that was immoral. There is no denying that and that does NOT interfere with the central Church teachings or make the Church wrong about the most important parts of the Christian faith.

Hello, again,

It’s unwise to judge the morals of the past with today’s relativistic morality. The Church did not err … it was the secular way of burning witches. As a matter of fact, since both the Old Testament and New Testament state “suffer not a witch to live,” we are immoral to allow witchcraft.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Luvtosew]

Hello, again,

It’s unwise to judge the morals of the past with today’s relativistic morality. The Church did not err … it was the secular way of burning witches. As a matter of fact, since both the Old Testament and New Testament state “suffer not a witch to live,” we are immoral to allow witchcraft.

God loves you,
Don

are you saying we should burn people who think they are a witch?

 

[SLC_Dancer]

It sounds like you have several issues with the Church teachings. I am currently in RCIA and preparing to enter the Church this Easter. I would recommend two documents to you that have answered ALL my questions.

First, you must have and read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It has extensive answers on just about every question you have. While it’s a great reference, I have found it extremely helpful to read the entire book straight through.

If you are struggling with contraception and conjugal relations, I suggest you read the Papal Encyclical by Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae. It’s not long and, I believe, it will answer your questions. And, yes, conjugal relations have a unifying purpose as well as procreative.

I hope you find the answers and will come home fully to the Catholic Church.

 

[jinc1019]

I so glad. These are things that I went through myself upon my return to the Church a few years ago so I thought I might have a bit of a handle on where you were coming from.

I would suggest that you get a hold of a copy of the Catholic Church Catechism. It contains much more “Teaching” than “Practice”. It also contains a lot of references to source documents.
There is an online version of the Catechism HERE that I find very helpful in looking things up…There is a search function at the bottom of the page for the catechism.
Source documents can be accessed at the Vatican website.

But do try to get a hard copy of the catechism as I think that will be most helpful.

Castello’s suggestion should also be very useful.

Peace
James

I will read extensively through the Catechism…I do already have a hard copy. Thanks again for your guidance.

 

[Abu]

jinc1019 #71
What exactly determines what is Church doctrine and what is just a position of the Church or its members?

From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical) against contraception, and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.

The three levels of teaching are:
**1) Dogma – infallible **(Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
**2) Doctrine – infallible **(Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
**3) Doctrine – non-definitive **(non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. [See *Ad Tuendam Fidem, Bl JPII]

You can get any of these documents from the web. Happy hunting!

 

[jinc1019]

From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical) against contraception, and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.

The three levels of teaching are:
**1) Dogma – infallible **(Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
**2) Doctrine – infallible **(Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
**3) Doctrine – non-definitive **(non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. [See *Ad Tuendam Fidem

, Bl JPII]

You can get any of these documents from the web. Happy hunting!

Great outline of some essential readings…thank you for all your hard work!

 

[JRKH]

I will read extensively through the Catechism…I do already have a hard copy. Thanks again for your guidance.

Your welcome.

My journey tends to be more in the mystical direction so I tend not to worry too much about the more precise definitions and such.

Thankfully I see our brethren have provided you with some good guidance on reading and on definitions.

May God bless you on your journey.

Peace
James

 

[adrift]

I agree with everything you said EXCEPT that the Church can never err when the Pope speaks for the seat of Peter. Why? Because the Church has made immoral proclamations as a matter of Church policy that extended WELL BEYOND simple opinon and individual moral indiscretion…

These statement are false. You don’t seem to distinguish between people of the Chruch and the Church. There have been bad people from the beginning, Judas comes to mine but the Church Divinely instituted is incapable of err.

The Church sold indulgences as a matter of policy,

Another false statement.
Tract

Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “*t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.”

the Church sanctioned the burning of witches in Spain and in other countries

…
Are you mixing up the Catholics with the Protestants? Are you referring to the Spanish Inquisition? Which ever you are misinformed.

.

there is no denying the Church made immoral decisions as a matter of Church policy and that cannot be considered just the personal opinion of the Pope, it was the approved policy of the Church.

Since this is a shotgun statement it is hard know what you are referring to. At any rate I do deny that the Chruch made immoral decisions. People in the Church did without a doubt as they do everyday.

Why is it that the Church can be fallible on issues not central to Church teachings?

Because the Church is made of fallible humans.

It doesn’t diminish the Church to accept that the Pope is a human and, like all humans, capable of making mistakes and doing immoral things

.
There were Pope that were acceptionally immoral but they never declared anything that was morally wrong to be believed by the whole Church.

And numerous members of the Church, bishops, cardinals, etc. have done the same thing and used their position in the Church to make Church policy that was immoral.

This is again a shotgun accusation. What policy are you referring and do you have all the fact on it?

There is no denying that and that does NOT interfere with the central Church teachings or make the Church wrong about the most important parts of the Christian faith.