Infallibility of Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glenn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Glenn

Guest
Can I be a Catholic if I do not believe everything the Church teaches? I understand the logic behind most of the doctrines of the Church, but there are some teachings that I’m not sure about–about which I cannot say absolutely, “Yes, I know that is true.” I don’t think I’m being obstinate here. I have studied the doctrines of the Church in detail, and there are just some things, I’m afraid to commit to, as a matter of conscience before God.
 
Last edited:
Coming from a Protestant background, I have been taught that there are some fundamentals that we must believe in order to be Christian. In other words, although we must separate ourselves (spiritually) from those who deny the fundamentals of the gospel, we must not divide over those things that might be considered non-essentials. This might be understood as the basis for the legitimate brotherhood between members of different confessing denominations. The essentials would be things like the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), the deity of Christ, the dual nature of Christ (fully God and fully man), the Virgin Birth, man’s sin nature and the sufficiency of Christ’s death to redeem us, etc. So there is this idea of a minimum belief in certain essentials. But is seems that with the Catholic Church there is no such idea. All the doctrines must be accepted.
 
If you’re coming into the Church, you should be open to what the Church teaches. You don’t have to jump in with both feet and declare that you firmly commit to every iota - you have to simply say that the Church may be far more wise than you. Don’t say “I can’t and never could believe X” of Church teaching; instead, say “I don’t get it, but if they say so, there must be a reason…” and then set about trying to understand (first through prayer, then study - which may take a life time).

If any of us had to fully understand all the Church’s teachings without a momentary hesitation, I’m not sure there would be too many Catholics left.
 
This is for Catholics to answer. There may be variances with how they put it, but I think bottom line you must believe what they say you must believe, or risk being out of grace , being in mortal sin. It is a package deal from what I understand.
 
I feel it is important to note that not every thing the Church teaches is taught infallibly. I found these articles helpful:

https://shop.catholic.com/blog/how-to-weigh-church-teaching/
http://jimmyakin.com/2005/05/noninfallible_t.html
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

We should certainly be extremely cautious about disagreeing with our spiritual fathers. Yet, we should also be aware that they may not always speak without error. We should also be aware that even infallibility applies only to faith and morals, not to prudential judgments. So while one might agree with the Church’s moral teachings, one might still disagree about the facts actually in play in a specific situation. (For example, one could hypothetically agree with the Church’s teachings about caring for the environment but disagree about specific causes and effects of climate change.)
 
On the one hand, not every teaching of the Church has the same weight. On the other hand, it is better to trust the authority of the Church rather than one’s own authority. That, it seems to me, is one of the fundamental differences between a Protestant attitude and a Catholic attitude towards doctrine.

Yet, we like ideas to make sense to us. (Well, some of us do, anyway.) Perhaps it would be helpful to consider Bl. Cardinal Newman’s observation that one thousand difficulties do not add up to one doubt. (Quoting from memory.)

Perhaps you would consider bringing some of the teachings you’re not sure about to the attention of the forum.
 
ELCore said:
On the one hand, not every teaching of the Church has the same weight. On the other hand, it is better to trust the authority of the Church rather than one’s own authority. That, it seems to me, is one of the fundamental differences between a Protestant attitude and a Catholic attitude towards doctrine.
Click to expand...
It depends on the Protestant.

When speaking of practice and doctrine, the use of the term Protestant is folly.
 
mcq72 said:
This is for Catholics to answer. There may be variances with how they put it, but I think bottom line you must believe what they say you must believe, or risk being out of grace , being in mortal sin. It is a package deal from what I understand.
Click to expand...
The bottom line is not “you must believe…” but rather “you must be open to believe…”

Peace!!!
 
Glenn said:
Coming from a Protestant background, I have been taught that there are some fundamentals that we must believe in order to be Christian. In other words, although we must separate ourselves (spiritually) from those who deny the fundamentals of the gospel, we must not divide over those things that might be considered non-essentials.
Click to expand...
You bring up excellent points.

I’m just thinking out loud regarding your points

AND

Based on your background, I have 2 questions for you as well ,

hopefully questions get to the answers you’re looking for.

So

Re: that rule you mention … essential vs non essential beliefs

Q:​

Protestantism regardless of stripe, or name they want to use, is ~ 40,000+ sects, divisions, denominations, etc etc today with each making their own rules and regulations governing each of them.

Who qualifies any of THEM to set any rules on what IS and is NOT essential for the whole, when there is THAT much disagreement and division among them and there is NO apostolic succession among any of them?
40.png
Glenn:
This might be understood as the basis for the legitimate brotherhood between members of different confessing denominations. The essentials would be things like the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), the deity of Christ, the dual nature of Christ (fully God and fully man), the Virgin Birth, man’s sin nature and the sufficiency of Christ’s death to redeem us, etc. So there is this idea of a minimum belief in certain essentials. But is seems that with the Catholic Church there is no such idea. All the doctrines must be accepted.
Click to expand...

Q:​

since

scripture teaches that those who divide or cause division from the Church established by Jesus, "don’t serve Our Lord Jesus Christ but themselves and their own selfish appetites"[Rom 16:17…] and if they die in that sin, “won’t inherit the kingdom of God” i.e. won’t go to heaven. [Gal 5:21]

Who then is qualified to determine doctrine and dogma,
a. 40,000 + divided sects of Protestantism,
or
b. the only Church Jesus established Himself, the Catholic Church, and gave all His promises to?

Just thinking out loud with respect to the points you provide.
 
Last edited:
It would help if you gave an example of a doctrine which you cannot support in good conscience.

Whether someone claims to 100% support every dogma or not is largely irrelevant compared to how you live your life and worship God. Don’t get stuck on pebbles.
 
adf417 said:
The bottom line is not “you must believe…” but rather “you must be open to believe…”

Peace!!!
Click to expand...
Ok…not heard that before…is it a version of what is required undetstanding? Is that in writing anywhere?.. maybe you speak of a catechumen?
 
Last edited:
Glenn said:
Can I be a Catholic if I do not believe everything the Church teaches? I understand the logic behind most of the doctrines of the Church, but there are some teachings that I’m not sure about–about which I cannot say absolutely, “Yes, I know that is true.” I don’t think I’m being obstinate here. I have studied the doctrines of the Church in detail, and there are just some things, I’m afraid to commit to, as a matter of conscience before God.
Click to expand...
We are required to assent to everything, though we may not understand it all.
 
I’m most likely wrong, can’t remember where I got the idea from. But I always believed if you believe every line of the Nicene Creed, you can be Catholic.
 
MAGAtrump said:
Those not accepting dogma are not Catholic, and salvation for them is left in the hands of God.
Click to expand...
A). The OP didn’t talk about “not accepting” the Church teachings, but rather about belief and understanding.

B). You cannot state that those not accepting dogmas are “not Catholic” because if they are baptized or received into the Church they most certainly are Catholic. Even an excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic.

I’d suggest you learn more before making pronouncements of who is and isn’t a Catholic and the state of their salvation.
 
I can share with you there were a lot of thing I didn’t “understand” or “agree with” when I converted. For example: contraception.

I did, however, believe in the authority of the Church. So it wasn’t much of a leap for me— I may not understand it, but if the Church teaches it, it must be true. So for example, I was single so contraception wasn’t an issue for me. I figured if I still didn’t understand it by the time I needed to be concerned about it I could assent without understanding it and follow the Church’s teaching.

Fortunately well before that time, it all clicked and the Church’s teaching made perfect sense.

It’s not an all or nothing proposition out of he gate, understanding comes with time and study. As long as you can assent that when you differ with the Church on doctrine that the Church is right and you need to keep studying, I think you will be fine.
 
Last edited:
We all say many things about what we believe.
But the church is about believing someone else.
It is about believing Jesus.
And if I believe the ones he sent to me I am also believing him.
Thomas Aquinas believed and wrote many things about the one he believed.
Yet in his last words he conceded that the one he believed could have the last word about truth:
Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee: if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written aught erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.
.
Click to expand...
I joined the church because I ended up knowing I had to trust the church as the apostolic voice to me

John Martin
 
Last edited:
Some of the issues that my wife and/or I have difficulty with are as follows:
  • My wife has difficulty with the idea of confessing her sins to a priest. She does confess her sins–directly and sincerely to Christ.
  • I believe that I am joined to Christ SPIRITUALLY through the Eucharist, but don’t understand why I must consider it to be the PHYSICAL blood and body of Christ in order for that union to be effective.
  • I am afraid of betraying Christ if I credit any of my own good works as contributing toward my justification. I want all the glory to be his. I do believe that faith without works is a dead faith, but I see the works as the necessary FRUIT of my justification, not the CAUSE of my justification. I believe I have been sealed by the Holy Spirit, and that he gives me the power to live unto God and to grow in sanctifying grace.
These are a few of my doctrinal beliefs that I don’t believe in good conscience before God that I can lay aside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top