If one doctrine is wrong, they all could be wrong?

[Jeanette_L]

You guys would never survive as Protestants…

I didn’t! That’s why I’m Catholic now. And if it ever could be proven that none of it is for sure, I’d have to throw in the towel also.

But, I’m counting on the gates of hell not prevailing! I finally know what that means.

 

[demerzel85]

As has been noted: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MUNIF.HTM

Ok bad example, I just couldnt remember which Marian Doctrine it was that hasnt been set as Dogma and for that case a Doctrine that is still ‘pending’. So well in the example it assumes that the case has not yet been made dogma.

 

[demerzel85]

In other words, the doctrine can develop, but it can’t change.

Jeremy

Within the Catholic Church, more often than nots its organic development first before the Supreme Legislator sets in in stone.

 

[demerzel85]

I second this. If the Catholic Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of Faith and Morals, then (IMO) the Catholic Church is not different then any other. Non-Christian included.

If it were proven, for me, it would all be over. It would all truly be relative.

If any Dogma is wrong then there is no basis for anyone to claim to be Christian at all. It is the Church that Jesus himself founded is always visible. It is this Church that spread the good news, and it is this Church whose leaders were given the authority to bind and to loose. This is what distinguishes the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church from all the rest.

 

[Hesychios]

Ok bad example, I just couldnt remember which Marian Doctrine it was that hasnt been set as Dogma and for that case a Doctrine that is still ‘pending’. So well in the example it assumes that the case has not yet been made dogma.

There is no such thing as pending doctrines.

Either they are, or they are not. Never pending.

 

[demerzel85]

There is no such thing as pending doctrines.

Either they are, or they are not. Never pending.

Actually there is. Mary as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate is still a doctrine and not yet a dogma. **
**

 

[Mijoy2]

I didn’t! That’s why I’m Catholic now. And if it ever could be proven that none of it is for sure, I’d have to throw in the towel also.

But, I’m counting on the gates of hell not prevailing! I finally know what that means.

If it were not for the authority of the catholic church, I’d be forced to put all faiths (christian and non-christian along with atheism) on an equal playing field. Hmmm, come to think of it that is precisely what I did from the ages of approximatly 13 to 47.

It wasn’t until, through my misery, I began once again to explore faith. At that time all faiths along with atheism was on an equal playing field. To the poster who suggested I’d never last as a protestant you are absolutely correct. When the church I was attending via my exploration was preaching hell to all who had not accepted Christ as thier personal savior , people I knew would come to mind and my stomach would ache for them from this teaching.

When I leared of the “so called” authority of the catholic church I began to explore this authority and what it taught. Many many teachings deeply disturbed me (contraception, dying in a state of mortal sin, homosexuality being sinful, the non-existance of divorce…etc).

Where the church claimed infallibility in it’s teachings on these matters I felt either the church was wrong, or I was wrong, or the church was right and I simply couldn’t “accept the truth” as Jack Nicholson would say. So I investigated each of these matters (Christopher West’s tapes on JPII’s Theology of the Body comes to mind for example).

What I learned has truly amazed me. The deeper I dug the more the teachings of the church made sense. The more I could see the fault in my ways of thinking. This went a long way in convincing me of the churches authority. This and the realization that I did not have to condem anybody to hell, along with scritural support of the apostolic, passed down, authority. The catholic concept that the job of judging a person’s heart is God’s and God’s alone provides me great comfort.

All this and realizing I wouldn’t have to sing at the top of my lungs anymore for 45 minutes to an hour a week. That was truly enough to make me want to pulll the covers over my head on Sunday mornings.

 

[rr1213]

Actually there is. Mary as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate is still a doctrine and not yet a dogma. **
**

I thought that John Paul II was persuaded not to define Mary as co-redemptrix. (BTW, an infallable papal definition in that vein would basically kill any hope of reconciliation with Protestants, not that there is much hope now or that the Catholic Church would care much about it).

 

[rr1213]

Where is this Universal Church, and how can I join? God knows I want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Jeremy

You won’t agree, but it subsists (love that word) in those churchs where the Gospel is correctly taught. As such, it spans denominational lines and can even divide denominations.

 

[jemfinch]

You won’t agree, but it subsists (love that word) in those churchs where the Gospel is correctly taught. As such, it spans denominational lines and can even divide denominations.

But you said that it’s “right all the time.” How do you know this? And how can I make use of this charism of infallibility so that I can know what the Gospel is? If it “spans denominational lines and can even divide denominations” how can I find it? How will I make it useful in my life? How can I hear the voice of this Universal Church, which I presume you mean is the Church spoken of in 1 Timothy 3:15, the pillar and foundation of truth?

Please, tell me how to find this Universal Church that is “right all the time” but “spans denominational lines and can even divide denominations.”

Jeremy

 

[Ron_Conte]

Actually there is. Mary as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate is still a doctrine and not yet a dogma.

Actually, at the current time, the idea of Mary as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix is a theological opinion, not a doctrine. Those terms have been used by the Magisterium, but not in such a manner as to give a doctrinal defintition to the meaning of the terms. The Magisterium cannot teach mere terminology; it must define a term in order to teach it. The Magisterium has not taught, even non-infallibly, what the meaning of those terms may be, so these terms are not yet doctrine.

Ron Conte

 

[havemercy]

So there IS a difference between ‘doctrine’ and ‘dogma’?

 

[Exalt]

Is anyone else at least slightly disturbed by the ambiguity of the “infallibility” of the church? It seems that the Church leaders like the hide behind a viel of infallibility, with the vague notion of absolute authority behind them.

To say that the Church has never been in error is to deny historical fact. I, for one, am tired of the double-think.

 

[jemfinch]

Is anyone else at least slightly disturbed by the ambiguity of the “infallibility” of the church?

Ambiguity? Faith and morals == infallible. Anything else == not infallible. It’s not ambiguous, it’s well-defined.

To say that the Church has never been in error is to deny historical fact. I, for one, am tired of the double-think.

Please document the cases where the Church has been wrong in matters of faith and morals.

Jeremy

 

[rr1213]

Please document the cases where the Church has been wrong in matters of faith and morals.

Ultimately this is a futile endeavor.

Protestants will say that the Catholic Church is wrong in matters of faith and morals and will give as examples [insert here major issue of your choice regarding Protestant disagreement with Catholic teaching]. Catholics will vehmently disagree that the Church is wrong on this issue, claiming among other things that the Church CANNOT, by DEFINITION, be wrong on matters of faith and morals, including the issue under discussion. Catholics then will become frustrated that Protestant posters can’t accept that the infallable Body of Christ a/k/a “the Catholic Church” is correct…Protestant posters will be frustrated that Catholics can’t accept the truth of the Scriptures. All of this will be played out according to how each one believes and perceives the truth. Everyone will get mad. Nothing will be gained. Christ will be displeased.

Sorry I’m so cynical at this point…

 

[Saint_Sinner]

Ultimately this is a futile endeavor…Sorry I’m so cynical at this point…

It’s alright. You are right that until you get straight the issue of authority the rest is hard to resolve. It may be that showing the beauty of the teachings and consistency of the beliefs of the CC may not be enough for some people.

Then you just have to pray…

 

[byHisGrace]

You guys would never survive as Protestants…

I didn’t. I was dying in moral relativism and multiple opinions all claiming to be true. Its why I am now and will remain faithful to Catholic teaching.

There’s another way to look at the reasonableness of the Church never teaching error in faith and morals. Consider the scripture. Lets hypothetically say that something clearly stated as true in the New Testament was proven without doubt to be patently false. How could one EVER believe anything else in the New Testament. The writers of the Gospels were protected from error in those things essential to our faith and morals. Why would God protect them from error, and not protect His Church, whose duty it is to teach us the uncompromised truths of our faith? It makes total sense. IF God protected the written Word, why in heaven would he then leave all successive generations rudderless to interpret it?

God bless you!

 

[MariaG]

I honestly don’t know how ordinary Catholics can keep straight what is an infallable teaching of the Church (Pope, ordinary magisterium, universal magisterium, etc.). Catholic scholars debate these issues and lay Catholics are supposed to know which is which? As for the OP, if the Catholic Church claims infallability, which it does (at least in the important matters) then, yes, if you are wrong on one issue the house of cards falls by definition. This is not a problem for Protestants since we do not claim that individual Protestant denominations are always right all the time. The Universal Church, yes, but not necessarily components thereof such as the Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, etc. Not your belief I know.

But wouldn’t that at one time have meant the Catholic Church since for a thousand years there was ONE, universal Church and it was the Catholic Church? And if so, when did the “universal” church stop being “right all the time”?

Probably off topic, but this comment caught my eye.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[rr1213]

But wouldn’t that at one time have meant the Catholic Church since for a thousand years there was ONE, universal Church and it was the Catholic Church? And if so, when did the “universal” church stop being “right all the time”?

Probably off topic, but this comment caught my eye.

God Bless,
Maria

That’s actually a pretty thoughtful comment. Your point would be that if my position was correct, the Universal Church would be equivalent to the Catholic Church at least until 1054, right? Hmmm… Of course there were differences of theological opinion within the undivided Church prior to the Great Schism. Maybe that’s the answer?

 

[jmcrae]

I honestly don’t know how ordinary Catholics can keep straight what is an infallable teaching of the Church (Pope, ordinary magisterium, universal magisterium, etc.). Catholic scholars debate these issues and lay Catholics are supposed to know which is which?

As a practicing Catholic, it’s not really something I worry about. My personal obedience is to my priest. Through him comes everything - the infalible teachings of the Church, the local discipline of our Diocese, and the particular advice that I need to follow in my personal life. I don’t need to distinguish which is which, other than as a purely intellectual exercise - all I need to do is obey all of it to the best of my understanding and ability.

I trust God to set the person up in authority over me who will be the best person to teach me His ways. I can’t say that I “like” my priest - he’s not one of these warm and fuzzy people who is easy to talk to, and our conversations tend to be very short and very practical - but I have great respect for him, and I can obey him without having to like him. If he tells me something wrong, I don’t sin by obeying him. If, on the other hand, I make myself an authority and disobey something he tells me, and it turns out that I’m wrong, I’m in deep trouble.

The greatest Saints obeyed their priests, even when they disagreed with them, and God blessed them for their obedience, even when it seemed clear that what the Saint wanted to do was probably the wiser course of action at the time.

People who did their own thing in disobedience, even when they were right, ended up being cut off from God, and ultimately, their plans ended in division and even warfare - and still didn’t solve the original problem. They would have done better to be patient and obedient.