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

[donsnow]

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

Good afternoon, Luvtosew,

No. Did you see those words you wrote, in my post? Of course you didn’t. So, why did you try to put those words on me? Please don’t do that.

I’m saying we should not allow that [witchcraft, sorcery and mediums] like we don’t allow drunk drivers, okay?

God loves you,
Don

 

[bmonk]

For starters, let me begin by saying that I believe in everything in the Nicene Creed…but one primary issue, which is attached to numerous other issues as well, has kept me from going to Church, from finally being confirmed, and from truly accepting the Catholic Church.

I call this problem my “filler issue,” because it directly relates to all of the Church stances made to “fill in” what Jesus did not directly address. For instance, on the issue of birth control, Jesus never directly addresses this (for obvious reasons) and nowhere can it be implied or seen that a married couple cannot use birth control or that sex should only be to create children and not as an expression of love between two married people. This is only ONE example, but there are many, many, many issues. Women being allowed to be priests is yet another. Confession is one as well. Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus suggest the Church’s role is to engage in these activities. I know confessional powers was given directly to the apostles AFTER the resurrection, but it doesn’t say priests 2,000 years later should have the same power. The Catholic Church has addressed these issues and insists many of them are inferred from the actions of Jesus, but I have trouble buying that argument. I guess in the end, my primary issue is accepting the Catholic Church’s role as creating NEW doctrine. I know why I should trust the Church’s stances on the issues relating directly to Jesus and the Old Testament, but I cannot bring myself to accept Church doctrine that was created by the Church alone, and I often wonder if the Church should be creating new doctrine or simply defending the doctrines handed down to them by Jesus and developing those further. I am NOT saying that Church does not have the authority to further develop ideas passed down by Jesus…the Trinity is an example of Church doctrine developed by the Church BASED on the teachings of Jesus. But contraception in married relationships doesn’t fit anywhere in that model because it’s not even based on what Jesus taught, and the Church’s position on women being priests makes little sense to me as well.

I believe Jesus established the Catholic Church, but with what mission? To create new doctrine as well as defend and develop original New Testament teachings? I am not so sure. I don’t know that Jesus ever intended for his Church to truly be making decisions only God could make. This is at the heart of my problem. I don’t know if I can be apart of the Catholic community truly because I don’t know if I can ever accept the Church’s role of creating new doctrine and then treating it as though it came directly from Jesus. Clearly the Church has made many mistakes in the past so not every decision it makes is what Jesus wants. If anyone can help me with this problem, I would greatly, greatly appreciate it. God bless.

Ok. I read you as having the basic problem of new doctrines established by the Church.

The question is, how new are these doctrines?

We believe that the Church remembers traditions not recorded in the Bible – as mentioned in John 21:25: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” Jesus could have spoken on some of these issues.

More to the point, the Gospel and our faith are a seamless garment, which calls us to change the whole of our life to fit God’s will. Over time, we come to understand more of what God is asking of us, and so can come to apparently new doctrines, or new aspects of old doctrines.

We also look to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as in John 14:26; 16:13-14. The Spirit will guide us to all truth, reminding us of what Jesus taught. This is one reason the Church does not lightly or often come up with “new” doctrines–because we need to be sure that they fit, that they are needed, and that they are, in fact, of God. Even the Creeds were only written over a lengthy period of debate and confusion, because more was needed than just to point to the Scriptures and say, “we believe what is written there.” We had to come up with terms like “homoousios”, “consubstantial” for the relationship of Son to Father.

To take an example, how about, say, the internet and use of computers? What did Jesus say about them? Not much, for obvious reasons: they didn’t exist. Does that mean there are not moral or immoral uses for them? Obviously, some uses are moral, some are not, and some can be ambiguous. How do we decide? If we are to decide as a church, to give support to one another on our way, we need some way to apply the old rules to new situations.

Now move to one of your examples: contraception. While certain forms existed from of old, such as condoms, the evidence is not very good either way. Certainly, there seems little chance that hormonal contraceptives in the modern sense were used. Again, what would Jesus have said? Did he know about such things, and not speak, or was he unaware of the options?

So we must try to do what we can to understand God’s will, to see what leads to life-affirming choices and behavior, and so on. And we don’t just decide once and for all. We continue to examine the consequences, to see what unforeseen complications arise, and such. Only after long debate, reflection, and prayer do we offer the guidance of the Church to its members, and only after even more care do we establish it as doctrines.

I guess for me it comes down in the end to this: do I trust my own understanding and wisdom as the final word, or do I trust the understanding and wisdom of the Church, backed by the promised Holy Spirit? Me, I have to go with the Church.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

But what really changed my mind was reading about the health-effects of birth control - it causes the body a tremendous amount of internal chaos, is linked to cancer, and I have read that the use of birth control indirectly leads to pollution of the environment as well. It’s nasty stuff. I didn’t want my wife taking something that would harm her.

You should probably evaluate your knowledge of the health effects of birth control. Catholic organizations tend to overstate the risks and understate the benefits of birth control. It is not difficult to understand their motives, so take their information on the subject with a grain of salt.

 

[jinc1019]

I appreciate the time and effort you took to respond to my question! Your final conclusion is my greatest personal challenge at this point. Internally, I just can’t get over that hump…It really is primarily an issue of whether the Church really was meant to have the authority to make these kinds of decisions or not. In my opinion, the evidence presented by the Church is not completely convincing and really can only be accepted in faith alone. Did Jesus want a universal Church? I believe the evidence supports he did. Did Jesus entrust his teachings and powers to the apostles to establish a Church? Yes, it seems clear that He did. Did Jesus promise to protect those apostles from “the gates of hell” and that the truth would always be with them? Yes he did. But, does this translate to infallibility? I think one does not necessarily follow from the other. Jesus can protect the Church from disobeying fundamental truths but the Church has proven to stray on non-fundamental issues (an undeniable fact that does not disprove infallibility), which leads me to wonder where is that line of teaching that is protected and the line that is not? The only one with an answer is the Church and that could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I just don’t know.

 

[JimmytheButcher]

I believe Jesus established the Catholic Church, but with what mission? To create new doctrine as well as defend and develop original New Testament teachings? I am not so sure. I don’t know that Jesus ever intended for his Church to truly be making decisions only God could make. This is at the heart of my problem. I don’t know if I can be apart of the Catholic community truly because I don’t know if I can ever accept the Church’s role of creating new doctrine and then treating it as though it came directly from Jesus. Clearly the Church has made many mistakes in the past so not every decision it makes is what Jesus wants. If anyone can help me with this problem, I would greatly, greatly appreciate it. God bless.

Jesus came to firmly plant His Church so that we might understand Who He Is, and to know Thyself.

I am going to be hard in the next section. I am compelled to be. I want you know that underneath my crusty shell is a whole lot of good intention and desire to love. Let me begin with a saying, “The cure to a hard-head is a soft-heart.” or… “Where there is a soft-head there is a hard-heart.” And, “Christ came to exchange hearts of stone for hearts of flesh.” That is the Gospel in a nutshell.

I will address only one point of contention. And, it is a doozie. The Church is an object of worship. The Church is a divine institution. We are compelled to bow our heads at the mention of the marks of the Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, because the Church is Christ Himself. Jesus Christ does not make errors. He does not transgress. He does not sin. He is perfect and likewise His Church is perfect.

Regular people are not perfect. Don’t allow your mind to confuse the Church with the muddleheaded nincompoops that go about engrandising themselves at the expense of the Faith of billions. All the Church requires (and this is the same thing as saying, all God requires because the Church and God are one in the same) is handful of holy men and women in every generation. God requires His Mary’s and He requires His David’s. God does not require some androgynous uni-sexual beast.

So, now we know enough to remember that saying that the Church does wrong things is an intrinsically evil act. Christ does nothing wrong. To say otherwise is a violation of the First Commandment.

 

[Abu]

jinc1019 #85
Did Jesus entrust his teachings and powers to the apostles to establish a Church? Yes, it seems clear that He did. Did Jesus promise to protect those apostles from “the gates of hell” and that the truth would always be with them? Yes he did. But, does this translate to infallibility?..…leads me to wonder where is that line of teaching that is protected and the line that is not? The only one with an answer is the Church and that could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I just don’t know.

You will never know until and unless you accept the clear mandate of God the Son – Jesus of Nazareth – and HIS protection and guarantee of the Holy Spirit. It is HIS Church which is infallible in teaching faith and morals. Only HIS Church can teach us and guarantee what is right and what is wrong – no one else. Of course HIS Church is “the only one with THE answer.”

Nowhere did Jesus teach or imply that He would keep anyone of His Apostles, or followers, from sin.

Post #68: “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.”

Post # 50:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

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.

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]

How could HIS Church possibly teach error in defining faith and morals for the world with HIS authority?

 

[JRKH]

I appreciate the time and effort you took to respond to my question! Your final conclusion is my greatest personal challenge at this point. Internally, I just can’t get over that hump…It really is primarily an issue of whether the Church really was meant to have the authority to make these kinds of decisions or not. In my opinion, the evidence presented by the Church is not completely convincing and really can only be accepted in faith alone.

You are making good progress here…In the end we MUST accept on faith.
However I did not bold “alone” because, as you questions and research has shown, we also rely on what has been written down, in Scripture…in the ECFs and so forth. So - it is faith, but it is faith that is also informed by reason. What the Catechism refers to as a “well formed conscience”

Did Jesus want a universal Church? I believe the evidence supports he did. Did Jesus entrust his teachings and powers to the apostles to establish a Church? Yes, it seems clear that He did. Did Jesus promise to protect those apostles from “the gates of hell” and that the truth would always be with them? Yes he did. But, does this translate to infallibility? I think one does not necessarily follow from the other.

In this I think that you need to clearly define what you mean by “infallibility” and what the Church defines it as. You also need to separate teaching from practice - the teachings of the Church (ekklesia - community called out) and the actions of individuals, even high ranking individuals.
It can become quite complicated.

Since you are a law student, let me ask you something. If you found yourself practicing law in a community of great corruption, misapplication of the law, greed, bribery and other obviously criminal acts by high ranking public officials, would you believe that the law was wrong? Or rather would you believe that the law was right and the individuals were wrong?
Many times this is what one finds in the Church. The teachings are quite right. But the actions of individuals and even groups of individuals can be uummm…less than stellar.

Jesus can protect the Church from disobeying fundamental truths but the Church has proven to stray on non-fundamental issues (an undeniable fact that does not disprove infallibility), which leads me to wonder where is that line of teaching that is protected and the line that is not? The only one with an answer is the Church and that could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I just don’t know.

This is where I fall back on Holy Scripture and the passages I pointed out to you earlier…In particular Mt 18:15-18 (the principle) and Acts 15 (the principle in action).

Consider that, in Acts 15, there was a group who firmly believed they were right but - after much debate, they were overruled. Now many may have been convinced by the debate, but were they all?? It seems most likely (given human nature) that the Judaizers fell into three categories during and after the council.

1. Those who were convinced.
2. Those who still wondered, but submitted their wills to the will of the Church.
3. Those who rejected the decision and left the Church
   The majority fell into groups one and two but certainly there were a few who likely left over the matter. My point being that, once the Church had spoken on the matter, that was it. Authority in Action.

Now consider non-Catholic Christianity from the Reformation till today.
By rejecting this authority, the protestant fathers set up a system that cannot fulfill the requirements of Scripture.
All they can do is to try to redefine it by saying that Mt 18 refers to the “local community”, yet Acts 15 clearly demonstrates against this since it was a conflict involving communities in multiple locations.
However, in spite of this clear evidence in Scripture AND the clear evidence of 500 years of protestant division and doctrinal conflict, they persist in this same troubling barrier that is troubling you. They cannot accept that Christ intended His Church to be authoritative and for us to “Tell it to”…and to “Listen to”…“The Church”.

As for the perfection or imperfection of the Church…It will be as perfect or imperfect as we, the faithful, make it.

Peace
James

 

[nordskoven]

Saint Augustine was a great scholar, and couldn’t understand a few things about Judeo-Christianity. But because he was a great scholar, he accepted the overwhelming consonance of all other teachings of the Church, and took on faith the rest. This included a seeming math error in Daniel, something more cut-and-dried than contraception, more obviously disturbing. The error of when Messiah was to come was a calendrical glitch worked out if using the Jewish, not Western, calendar.

Women cannot be priests because only men can atone for the “Sin of Adam.” It’s a taking on of the opprobrium of Original Sin and not to be laid on the back of Woman, the Genesis 3:15 title Christ used of His mother. Woman & Seed have their own mandate: crush Lucifer’s snakey head.

God mandates and does not un-mandate. That’s why Lucifer & Fiends are still with us, that is, until such time as a new Heaven and Earth are given and their limited but still extant power and authority is exterminated when the time for chosing is over and the final judgment made.

Sister Nancy Kennedy made the medical argument against Birth Control when it first came out. It is a biological wild card and we know not the consequences. We now know it can cause strokes and heart attacks, and the younger the female, the higher the risk. We do know this: males today have 1/2 the sperm count of their grandfathers, and soy derivatives can provide phyto-estrogens; but hormones in drinking water from widespread use may be a factor. And we know women on The Pill do not arouse males with the X-Factor once attributed to pheromones but now proven to be still a mystery. We are to be fruitful and multiply, and “Catholic” Italy has the lowest birth rate in the world. Muslims are taking over, not with bullets, but with babies. This war, if our affection for sterile sex continues, is over. We lose. Ask God to enlighten the eyes of your heart, as I beg Him to do for me now and always. Lord, let our wills be united with Yours, our hearts with Your boundless love.

If not, we’re going out with a whimper, not a bang.

 

[bmonk]

Yes, but you have to be careful what time of the month to be with your spouse. So that takes all the spontaneity away. Making love by the calender–how romantic! No matter how you dress it up, it is still birth control. It used to be called the rhythm method.

I’m not sure if anyone else has responded to this, but I will.

First, Natural Family Planing (NFP) is far more than the rhythm method, or making love by the calendar.

It involves education, self-discipline, communication, joint decision making–all of which are useful in building a stronger marriage relationship. It involves more creative ways to express love: snuggling, talking and deep discussion, sharing interests, or even more creative expressions of love.

It means, yes, deciding how you want to express your love in this situation–but it’s not by the calendar, but by the situation the couple find themselves in. But what else is new about that? What about a couple deciding to start a new business, or a couple dealing with cancer? They also have to decide how to express their love in creative ways.

This is what I meant for jinc1019 when I spoke of developing doctrine–the early Church, following Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, and St. Paul in his letters, certainly saw the parallels between the relationship of Christ and the Church and the Marriage relationship–but it is only with fuller reflection and insight that we come up with the idea of the twin goods of marriage, unity and children, and from that can go on to distinguish between appropriate forms of family planning and inappropriate forms, which rely on more direct birth control. True, Jesus did not speak about family planning, but by reflecting on what he did teach us (as Mary did, treasuring these things in her heart), we can see how it fits the way of life he did leave us.

 

[bmonk]

I appreciate the time and effort you took to respond to my question! Your final conclusion is my greatest personal challenge at this point. Internally, I just can’t get over that hump…It really is primarily an issue of whether the Church really was meant to have the authority to make these kinds of decisions or not. In my opinion, the evidence presented by the Church is not completely convincing and really can only be accepted in faith alone. Did Jesus want a universal Church? I believe the evidence supports he did. Did Jesus entrust his teachings and powers to the apostles to establish a Church? Yes, it seems clear that He did. Did Jesus promise to protect those apostles from “the gates of hell” and that the truth would always be with them? Yes he did. But, does this translate to infallibility? I think one does not necessarily follow from the other. Jesus can protect the Church from disobeying fundamental truths but the Church has proven to stray on non-fundamental issues (an undeniable fact that does not disprove infallibility), which leads me to wonder where is that line of teaching that is protected and the line that is not? The only one with an answer is the Church and that could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I just don’t know.

I’d suggest two things: first, faith is a matter of, well, faith: we consider the question(s) as best we can, and in the end must choose without knowing for sure, because there is just too much to know to be able to consider everything fully. You must take that leap of faith into trust.

Second, if questions like infallibility are the sticking point, then it may help to study how they were developed and adopted. I find it notable that infallibility was not adopted quickly, but only after long reflection and development, concerning councils and the history of the Papacy, both notorious sinner-Popes and others who did make judgments on doctrines, as well as the churches and groups that split off to form their own communities.

 

[JRKH]

I’m not sure if anyone else has responded to this, but I will.

**First, Natural Family Planing (NFP) is far more than the rhythm method, or making love by the calendar.

It involves education, self-discipline, communication, joint decision making–all of which are useful in building a stronger marriage relationship. It involves more creative ways to express love: snuggling, talking and deep discussion, sharing interests, or even more creative expressions of love.**

It means, yes, deciding how you want to express your love in this situation–but it’s not by the calendar, but by the situation the couple find themselves in. But what else is new about that? What about a couple deciding to start a new business, or a couple dealing with cancer? They also have to decide how to express their love in creative ways.

This is what I meant for jinc1019 when I spoke of developing doctrine–the early Church, following Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, and St. Paul in his letters, certainly saw the parallels between the relationship of Christ and the Church and the Marriage relationship–but it is only with fuller reflection and insight that we come up with the idea of the twin goods of marriage, unity and children, and from that can go on to distinguish between appropriate forms of family planning and inappropriate forms, which rely on more direct birth control. True, Jesus did not speak about family planning, but by reflecting on what he did teach us (as Mary did, treasuring these things in her heart), we can see how it fits the way of life he did leave us.

Beautifully expressed…

Peace
James

 

[LovePatience]

Important to realize the difference between infalliable and everything else. Some things are tradition and some are infalliable. I doubt that the answers to these issues that you are talking about have been declared infalliable.

 

[Abu]

LovePatience #93
I doubt that the answers to these issues that you are talking about have been declared infalliable.

Exactly what “issues” do you doubt that infallibility applies to?

 

[LovePatience]

Exactly what “issues” do you doubt that infallibility applies to?

Can you prove they ARE infalliable?

 

[Abu]

WHAT “issues”?

 

[jinc1019]

You will never know until and unless you accept the clear mandate of God the Son – Jesus of Nazareth – and HIS protection and guarantee of the Holy Spirit. It is HIS Church which is infallible in teaching faith and morals. Only HIS Church can teach us and guarantee what is right and what is wrong – no one else. Of course HIS Church is “the only one with THE answer.”

Nowhere did Jesus teach or imply that He would keep anyone of His Apostles, or followers, from sin.

Post #68: “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.”

Post # 50:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

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.

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]

How could HIS Church possibly teach error in defining faith and morals for the world with HIS authority?

I appreciate the comment and the cited biblical authority. Ultimately, however, the Catholic Church bases their belief in being the sole authority for Jesus on earth on Church tradition, which is reflected in these gospel writings…But the only way to really accept that the meaning of these mandates is authority in ALL things related to faith and morals, including those things not directly addressed by Jesus is faith. You have faith that Jesus intended the passages you listed above and his mandates to the apostles to mean authority in all things regarding faith and morals to be decided by the Church. Historically, we don’t know what ELSE Jesus said and we don’t know for sure what Jesus meant when he gave these rather vague commands in the Gospels. It has to be accepted on faith alone and that is, obviously, something that has been a great challenge for me. I was hoping when I originally posed this question that I would get the answers needed to overcome that, and I have learned a GREAT deal from this community and this thread, but the issue of Church authority on all things regarding faith and morals is not something I have fully accepted.

 

[jinc1019]

You are making good progress here…In the end we MUST accept on faith.
However I did not bold “alone” because, as you questions and research has shown, we also rely on what has been written down, in Scripture…in the ECFs and so forth. So - it is faith, but it is faith that is also informed by reason. What the Catechism refers to as a “well formed conscience”

In this I think that you need to clearly define what you mean by “infallibility” and what the Church defines it as. You also need to separate teaching from practice - the teachings of the Church (ekklesia - community called out) and the actions of individuals, even high ranking individuals.
It can become quite complicated.

Since you are a law student, let me ask you something. If you found yourself practicing law in a community of great corruption, misapplication of the law, greed, bribery and other obviously criminal acts by high ranking public officials, would you believe that the law was wrong? Or rather would you believe that the law was right and the individuals were wrong?
Many times this is what one finds in the Church. The teachings are quite right. But the actions of individuals and even groups of individuals can be uummm…less than stellar.

This is where I fall back on Holy Scripture and the passages I pointed out to you earlier…In particular Mt 18:15-18 (the principle) and Acts 15 (the principle in action).

Consider that, in Acts 15, there was a group who firmly believed they were right but - after much debate, they were overruled. Now many may have been convinced by the debate, but were they all?? It seems most likely (given human nature) that the Judaizers fell into three categories during and after the council.

1. Those who were convinced.
2. Those who still wondered, but submitted their wills to the will of the Church.
3. Those who rejected the decision and left the Church
   The majority fell into groups one and two but certainly there were a few who likely left over the matter. My point being that, once the Church had spoken on the matter, that was it. Authority in Action.

Now consider non-Catholic Christianity from the Reformation till today.
By rejecting this authority, the protestant fathers set up a system that cannot fulfill the requirements of Scripture.
All they can do is to try to redefine it by saying that Mt 18 refers to the “local community”, yet Acts 15 clearly demonstrates against this since it was a conflict involving communities in multiple locations.
However, in spite of this clear evidence in Scripture AND the clear evidence of 500 years of protestant division and doctrinal conflict, they persist in this same troubling barrier that is troubling you. They cannot accept that Christ intended His Church to be authoritative and for us to “Tell it to”…and to “Listen to”…“The Church”.

As for the perfection or imperfection of the Church…It will be as perfect or imperfect as we, the faithful, make it.

Peace
James

Hi James,
You made an excellent point about corruption and law…you are absolutely right on that issue; corruption in the Church does NOT really have anything to do with the authority of the Church.

I agree with you that the Church’s teachings on all central arguments are correct and that on these matters, it seems undeniable that they are infallible because of where those teachings come from. When the Church is forced to make a decision on something that is not a central Christian teaching, it becomes less clear in my mind. While I agree that the Church was given authority to teach about Jesus, the category of faith and morals has expanded a great deal over the history of the Church to include things, as we talked about before, like modern contraception…and that expansion is what really concerns me.

Protestants deny the Church’s authority in order to get around these other issues, but they derive their authority solely from the Bible, which was created by the Church, and ignores 2000 years of Church tradition (not to mention the Eucharist), so I am certainly not an advocate for their way of things.

But in the end, I just don’t ever know if I will be convinced that Jesus intended to give the Church authority to determine what is Godly and what is not in all areas of life outside of what is clearly central Church teachings (ex.: The Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the Eucharist, etc.). Things like contraception, female priests, etc. do not seem to me to be as clear as the first category, even though both groups are placed under the heading of “faith and morals.” For me, the Church can have a position on anything and that is totally fine, but they should only be saying a teaching on an issue is infallible if they are 100% certain that this is what Jesus wants and I am not sure that is always the case. Now I know the argument against it, and I understand that most people on this forum believe Jesus granted the authority to the Church to make these decisions, but this is ultimately a matter of faith based on very broad statements in the Bible and Church tradition, which should not be discunted at all, but for me, it’s hard to deal with. I will pray about it as I do every night and hope for clarity. Thanks again, as always.

 

[NYCATHOLICGIRL]

This is from The Didache, the first writings of the Apostles
Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.

And this by Martin Beckman:
One of the little known facts about birth control pills and contraceptive devices is that, even in their normal use, they can be abortifacient. "The word ‘abortifacient’ means 'having a secondary effect of not allowing a fertilized egg (a baby) from implanting, and therefore killing the baby.

 

[jinc1019]

I’d suggest two things: first, faith is a matter of, well, faith: we consider the question(s) as best we can, and in the end must choose without knowing for sure, because there is just too much to know to be able to consider everything fully. You must take that leap of faith into trust.

Second, if questions like infallibility are the sticking point, then it may help to study how they were developed and adopted. I find it notable that infallibility was not adopted quickly, but only after long reflection and development, concerning councils and the history of the Papacy, both notorious sinner-Popes and others who did make judgments on doctrines, as well as the churches and groups that split off to form their own communities.

Thank you for the advice and suggestions. I do appreciate the help and I will investigate the development of infallibility. Additionally, I will pray for guidance and hope for the faith you are referring to. God Bless.

Justin

 

[JRKH]

I appreciate the comment and the cited biblical authority. Ultimately, however, the Catholic Church bases their belief in being the sole authority for Jesus on earth on Church tradition, which is reflected in these gospel writings…But the only way to really accept that the meaning of these mandates is authority in ALL things related to faith and morals, including those things not directly addressed by Jesus is faith. You have faith that Jesus intended the passages you listed above and his mandates to the apostles to mean authority in all things regarding faith and morals to be decided by the Church. Historically, we don’t know what ELSE Jesus said and we don’t know for sure what Jesus meant when he gave these rather vague commands in the Gospels. It has to be accepted on faith alone and that is, obviously, something that has been a great challenge for me. I was hoping when I originally posed this question that I would get the answers needed to overcome that, and I have learned a GREAT deal from this community and this thread, but the issue of Church authority on all things regarding faith and morals is not something I have fully accepted.

If I may offer what I see as a possible blockage…It sort of relates to the bolded section above.

I accept, on faith, that the Church is Christ’s authority on earth, but it is not be “Faith Alone”. This faith is founded on understandings that, while I sometimes have a hard time explaining, none the less keep pointing me back to the Church because - in comparison to the other options - well - there just is no comparison. We can maybe get more into that if you like…but be forewarned that I can have great difficulties explaining it sometimes…

Likewise, the fact that I DO accept the authoritative Church does not mean that I don’t have certain doubts, concerns, issues etc. about what and how the Church teaches.
However - and this is crucial - these doubts just do not trump the deeper and more central factors that lead me back to the Church.

Just as one example…
In the first 1500 years of Christianity, The Church - East and West - believed and accepted that the Church was Authoritative. No “Sola Scriptura” or anything like it. The East West Split was about how that authority functioned and not the authority itself…
During this time - 1500 years remember - there were few splits and doctrinal issues and heresies were dealt with by the authoritative Church just as described in the Gospel.

After 1500 years, some Christians decided to try a new model and rejected the authoritative Church…Result?? Doctrinal Chaos!! Even the original reformers could not agree among themselves what should be believed…
No councils and no consensus - Just certain individuals a bible and their personal Idea…
This model flies in the face of Scripture, as I have already shared with you. “Church”, Ekklesia" means “community”. Tell it to the community (or representatives of the community). Listen to the community (or the representatives of the community)…

So - after looking at the historical evidence of which model appears more Scriptural, I needed little “faith” to choose the Catholic model.

Peace
James