Infallibility of Church?

[Glenn]

I can say both the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed without hesitation. I would say that this is the minimum that one must believe to be a Catholic. It is some of the things in the Catechism that I have difficulty with.

 

[Glenn]

I have read Aquinas and Augustine, and the Church Fathers, and I deeply appreciate what they have written. I have also read much from Pope Benedict XVI, and his writings are wonderful. I believe that Jesus is Lord and that I must trust him rather than myself. So I have always–since I was converted to Christianity–submitted myself to what I see that he taught, as recorded in Holy Scripture. But when I started to learn about what Catholics believe, it seemed that there were some contradictions between what I had learned through my study of the Scriptures and what was being taught by the Catholic Church. Hence the struggle. I study the teachings of the Catholic Church, but then I go back and diligently search the Scriptures, and I find that on some points I cannot reconcile the two.

 

[Theo520]

All are good issues to think about. Here’s how I think about them personally.

I think many Catholic practices developed over millennia because they work. The act of confession forced the process of examination, penance, and a sense of accountability to change that isn’t there so broadly without the check-in with a priest for forgiveness. Of course God doesn’t need the Priest but many of us do as we work to better ourselves. The bible indicates Christ bestowed the power to forgive but it doesn’t say it was exclusively their right. Do you believe the powers or responsibilities Christ gave to his apostles have been handed down to our modern priests, that is the fundamental question.

I don’t get transubstantiation myself. But I imagine the more serious or holy we take the sacrament, the more open we will be to allowing the Holy Spirit into our hearts.

I always believed the faith vs works debate was misguided, like two people talking past each other and not really listening. “each tree is known by it’s fruit” seems sound advice from the bible, doesn’t it? Someone with Christ in their heart will produce good fruit and someone who produces bad fruit likely doesn’t have Christ in his heart, no matter what they claim.

While it’s true that doing good works could be a smokescreen, there is also a flip side in that as you start to do good works, even if you don’t feel like it or do it for the wrong reasons, it starts to change you inside. As it becomes more of a habit, you become less self centered and more open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Thus I think both Protestants and Catholics are correct, given the right context.

 

[VeryBlessed]

I am a revert. Part of what drew me back to the church, was the central issue of authority. OP, if you’ve grown up Protestant, you are all too familiar with the factions that divide the non-Catholic Christians. Did Jesus intend his church to be so fractured? If not, then did he give “authority to interpret” to one church? I had to conclude that he did give this authority to what we know as the Catholic Church. One I accepted the church’s teaching authority, it also meant that I had to begin to doubt some of my views which clearly did conflict with the teachings of the church. I don’t resonate equally with every single Catholic teaching. Some, I very much do resonate with. Others are very much harder to accept. But I’m willing to consider them true since my church says they are true. Some issues I just have to wrestle with more than others. But you know what? I love the humility that this forces me to embrace. I am not my own pope any more! I have both the Bible and a God ordained magisterium to guide me.

 

[John_Martin]

, and I find that on some points I cannot reconcile the two.

It is the same with me.
I look at it this way, however, that if the Jesus I know is who I know him to be, then the church who delivered him to me will certainly be able to explain and reconcile the issues I see between what the church says and what occurs to my reason through my study of scripture and theology.
I grant them that respect that I turn repeatedly to the church as being correct to clarify and explain until I understand and they always do. I expect correct answers from St Thomas Aquinas and that is why he did not get by with one reading, but three, of his Summa Theologica.
A note: When I read the Bible I expect the correct interpretation to come up equaling the Catholic teaching and I expect Church to be able to explain why the other teachings have been incorrect and simply private interpretations - so the church gets no rest until I understand because I know they do know the answer that can quench my thirst to know.
I am not easily satisfied; I have studied Luther, having read most of his Works more than once; I study the Bible using Greek and some Hebrew to the point where I can even help the church explain itself in it’s Doctrine.

I wholeheartedly crave what I used to condemn as a Lutheran, a highly educated Lutheran.

When I became a Catholic I wondered if I was committing apostasy, sending myself to condemnation. But when I became confirmed it was like I was never so alive in my past.
I really did feel like I was dying and afraid, and then everything was more real than it has ever been. For instance confessing my sins directly to Jesus, to the Father, was never to me as life-giving and refreshing as hearing the Absolution from my priest after a good confession, a confession to a man. How could such a thing be?, but it was.

I do know that it is not given to everyone to know this or to seek it.

 

[Elf01]

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.

How do you read Matthew 25?

 

[1ke]

These are a few of my doctrinal beliefs that I don’t believe in good conscience before God that I can lay aside.

These things take time. Keep studying. Talk to your priest one on one. RCIA Catechesis is for the masses, and they don’t go that deep. We had an RCIA catechumens who spent three years grappling with the real presence before he came into the Church.

 

[adf417]

adf417:

The bottom line is not “you must believe…” but rather “you must be open to believe…”

Peace!!!

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?

Properly referenced below are only a few of many catechism (CCC) references: Please read in further context…

158
286
785
1095-1096 (direct reference)
1845 (as gift of Holy Spirit)
2419

These are only a few in the fuller context of the CCC. Reading the posts of Catholics on this thread should also give you a clear view of the church’s first hand teaching on this subject.

If the church did not teach openness to understanding and belief but absolute understanding and belief, there would be only one person in the church, Jesus himself.

Peace!!!

 

[MT1926]

My wife has difficulty with the idea of confessing her sins to a priest. She does confess her sins–directly and sincerely to Christ.

As many do. My recommendation for her is to just do it. God gave us the sacraments for our benefit not His. As our creator God knows we need ritual to help us order our lives.

If we go back an read Leviticus 5:5-6 we notice we have God insisting on an out loud confession to the priest. Then gives the sinner a liturgical act of sacrifice and penance. So they had to say they were sorry and then show that they meant it. And notice it is the priest that shall make atonement for the sinner.

It is important to point out that these sacrifices did not force God to forgive them. The rituals God instituted were for their benefit not His. He forgave out of love.

No where in the NT does Jesus state we mo longer need to do this, for our benefit. Actually, if we keep OT confession in our minds we can see Jesus wanted a continuation when He passed this on to the Apostles.

John 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

The main point I am trying to show is we need to understand that this is not a new idea to the people of the day. It would actually be expected as a continuation of the Old Covenant. The first Christians wouldn’t be saying I am having a difficulty with this new idea. Actually, in the OT the sinner was the one who had to butcher the animal and hand the parts to the priest. I’m thinking they would be loving this new and easier way of confessing.

I’d recommend going to…

The Bible and the Sacraments – St. Paul Center

This was an excellent study. Quite often Dr. Hahn allows us to watch it for free during Lent, which is just around the corner.

Hope this helps some. I too have a difficulty going to confession, but I gotta be honest I have gone to a few great confessors through the years and I feel so much better when I finish talking to them.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

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’m not 100% sure where you are going with this so I will try using a different approach.

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

Now the first thing I want to point out is we don’t have a whole lot of scripture of Jesus telling us exactly how we are to worship him. So in my mind the few instances like Jesus saying “Do this in remembrance of me” must be a none negotiable, yep we gotta do it. We can also confirm this because here we see that Jesus “broke it”. Which we see that the early Christians associated the Eucharist with this gesture, calling it the breaking of the bread (Lk 24:35, Acts 2:42 & 20:7)

Now, for me anyway, I would be asking…why would Jesus want us to SPIRITUALLY join with a symbol? Of what benefit would there?

What I mean by this is, if it is just a symbol do we really need a symbol in order for us to join spiritually with Christ. Can’t we join spiritually at home just talking with Him? So if joining spiritually with a symbol is no greater than joining spiritually without the symbol why would this of all things be the number one thing Jesus commanded the Apostles to do in perpetuity?

However, maybe the Eucharist isn’t just a symbol but truly is the PHYSICAL body and blood of Christ because He wishes us to join with Him Physically?

Read about Jesus physical cures in the Bible. He used outwards signs to perform a deeper more lasting spiritual healing. Notice he used physical means. Mud, spittle, spoken words, and eye contact…… WHY?
Because he knows as human beings we learn through our senses. So he brought it down to our level. God knows we learn through our senses, so he set the sacraments up to appeal to our humanity.

Jesus was only with humanity for 33 years. He left us the sacraments to allow us to experience His physical touch and presence now and in the generations to come.

To me it makes more sense that it’s gotta be more than just a symbol if Jesus wanted us to break the bread in remembrance of Him.

Hope this helps,

God Bless

 

[goout]

• 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.

We believe that Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity, Incarnate (or in human flesh)
Many denominations have lost this sense of the Incarnation of Christ and have relegated Christ to a sort of gnostic spiritual teacher who didn’t really have full humanity.

The Incarnation is a key belief of Catholics, and is professed at least nominally by all Christians.
So the answer to your question is that Christ has a real body not just a spiritual appearance, and we take John 6 literally because that’s clearly the way Jesus meant it to be taken, and that’s the way it has been taken since the beginning of the Church.

 

[Dovekin]

This is a complex issue that many have spent time on, catholic and noncatholic. In the 1990s Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF spent some time refining the profession of faith required of those who work for the Church in some respect. It was the Creed, but they added language about what has to be believed (dogma); what has to be held; and what has to be (can’t think of the term). Creed, solemn definitions are believed by act of divine faith. Ordination reserved to men is held on the basis of your faith in the Church’s bishops being guided by the Holy Spirit; other teachings are respected? accepted? based on the Spirit guidance.

That is probably too technical, and I may have made mistakes in stating it, but it should give some insight into how Catholics approach the questions you raise. Ad Tuendam Fidem was papal legislation on this, issued with a Commentary that gets into these technical aspects. The ultimate issue is faith in the Church and in her teaching.

On the Eucharist, the substantial presence of Christ is physical, but that is not the same as saying ‘substance’ as used by a physical scientist. Ratzinger is good on this in his book on the Liturgy.

If you want to understand the Church’s position on Justification, read the joint declaration from the Luther World Federation and the Catholic Church. It includes some details about Catholics and protestants have nuanced it differently. (Spoiler alert: it is pretty close to what you say here.)

 

[ELCore]

That is probably too technical, and I may have made mistakes in stating it, but it should give some insight into how Catholics approach the questions you raise. Ad Tuendam Fidem was papal legislation on this, issued with a Commentary that gets into these technical aspects. The ultimate issue is faith in the Church and in her teaching.

I had considered posting that link, but it is indeed very technical, so I decided against the reference since it might be more confusing than helpful.

 

[Gab123]

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.

Jesus is the cause of your salvation, but your salvation is contingent on your works.

Repentance, forgiveness, and love are all works; and one’s salvation is contingent on us doing these works to be saved. Thus faith without works is dead. A man can claim that he has faith in Jesus Christ, and even perform miracles with that faith; but if he has unforgiveness in his heart toward others he runs the risk of eternal ruin. As Jesus said:

Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

As Paul states:
and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

 

[Glenn]

All excellent responses. It’s still up to me to believe each of the doctrines, and that is not something I can turn on like a switch. The Church has always been rational in its formulation of its doctrine - i.e., the Trinity as one ESSENCE and three PERSONS; the DUAL nature of Christ as fully God and fully man. Aquinas is eminently rational. Although I am called to believe, I don’t think the Church asks me to lay aside my mind.

So who is in the Church and who is outside of the Church? When Ignatius of Antioch first used the term “catholic” in 107 BC, it essentially meant “universal,” signifying a spiritual unity that rises above geographic, cultural, and ethnic boundaries. Christ established his Church upon the foundation of the prophets and the apostles, with himself as the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). But who actually belongs is a question that only God can ultimately answer. In the parable of the wheat and the tares, Jesus told us that in the true Church, the wheat and the tares will grow up together, and we will have to wait until the harvest, the final judgment, for one to be properly distinguished from the other.

So I believe the true Church comprises all those who have the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9). We may be justified, in a state of grace, but none of us are perfectly sanctified. We will continue to grow spiritually in this life, which means that we will continue to have moral failings but also failings in our doctrinal understanding. But if we have been truly ransomed by the blood of our Savior, will are still united to him, we are still a part of his mystical body, “being confident of this, that he who began a good work in [us] will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus” (Philippians 1:6).

 

[Glenn]

So if there is a TRUE Church, does this imply a man-made institution or the mystical body of Christ? Yes, the Spirit will lead us into all truth, but does this mean that we, or any human organization, has yet to fully realize that promise. I have difficulty believing that even the Catholic Church has it all right. I don’t believe the statement that there are 40,000 Protestant denominations. There are several streams within Protestantism, but they are united in their belief in Christ and in Holy Scripture. There have been divisions within the Church from its earliest times, going back as far Tertullian. Then there was the fissure between East and West, between Catholic and Orthodox. As recently as Vatican II, there is now a Catholic group that refuses to accept the current church at Rome. Then you have liberal theologians and priests and nuns who no longer adhere to the orthodox traditions. (I would venture to say that conservative Catholics have more in common with conservative Protestants than they do with liberal Catholics.) And now there is a Pope who is creating all kinds of doctrinal confusion within the Church.

My point is this: Protestants believe that the Apostolic Tradition was codified in Scripture. But the question arises, “who can rightly interpret these writings?” Catholics contend that it is the Catholic Church, via the Church Catechism. But we have as many interpretations of the Catechism writings as we have of the Scripture. There are interpretations of interpretations. And although the Catholic Church is united under a single physical organization, it seems that there are essentially the same kinds of doctrinal divisions within that organization that affect Protestants. So I go back to the original writings, to the Scripture, which were delivered to us by those who were directly commissioned by Christ. I don’t think this is obstinacy. I want what Christ has for me. I want to know him, and to live for him. The Church did not die for me. He did.

I would like to attend Mass, but I cannot receive the Lord’s Supper because I do not believe every iota of the official Church. I believe the Holy Scriptures. I believe the ancient creeds. I believe more of what the Catholic Church teaches than most Catholics I know. But in good conscience, I still cannot become a Catholic because in order to do that, I must believe everything taught in the Catechism. So, I’m still a Protestant.

 

[mcq72]

If the church did not teach openness to understanding and belief but absolute understanding and belief, there would be only one person in the church, Jesus himself.

Ok read them. Do understand the difference between understanding and faith and there later linkage even. Still not sure anyone is saying one must perfectly understand much less perfectly believe whatever that means.

Got this tidbit from papal decree on assumption,

:45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

So I guess being “open to the truth” must not be “calling into doubt”, which is forbidden.

 

[MT1926]

Don’t take anything I say as argumentative. Just simply asking questions.

So who is in the Church and who is outside of the Church? When Ignatius of Antioch first used the term “catholic” in 107 BC, it essentially meant “universal,” signifying a spiritual unity…

What do you believe Ignatius believed the visible signs of “spiritual unity” would look like?

But who actually belongs is a question that only God can ultimately answer.

Do you not believe that the scriptures can show us who is and isn’t a member of the Body of Christ?

In the parable of the wheat and the tares,… for one to be properly distinguished from the other.

Actually, Jesus never says this. In the parable Jesus points out that the servants (us) were able to tell the difference between the weeds and the wheat. He even says while you are pulling the weeds…

So if there is a TRUE Church, does this imply a man-made institution or the mystical body of Christ?

why can’t there be a TRUE visible Church founded by Christ and placed in the care of man yet still guided by the Holy Spirit? The reason I ask is because it seems both of your choice mean the TRUE Apostolic Church went Apostate and is now either the man-made Catholic Church or a mystical (not visible) body of Christ? Neither of which seeming to be what Christ actually intended?

I have difficulty believing that even the Catholic Church has it all right.

The Catholic Church freely admits that she doesn’t have all of the answers. I believe this is one of the reasons why She gives us teachings on Faith and Morals instead of interpreting every single verse of scripture. She shows us the narrow road and says as long as you do this and don’t do that you won’t fall off the road. Far more freeing than trying to keep scripture interpretations from contradicting itself.

There have been divisions within the Church from its earliest times, going back as far Tertullian.

And as long as humans are in the Church there always will be.

My point is this: Protestants believe that the Apostolic Tradition was codified in Scripture. But the question arises, “who can rightly interpret these writings?”

I see your difficulty here but have you tried just asking the question did Jesus intend one truth and if so how did He intend for us to know this one truth?

I believe more of what the Catholic Church teaches than most Catholics I know. But in good conscience, I still cannot become a Catholic because in order to do that, I must believe everything taught in the Catechism. So, I’m still a Protestant.

There is no hurry. Just keep an open mind, keep asking questions and keep digging for the truth.

God Bless

 

[Bluebright]

Well it is all true, so ask God to explain it to you and help you with your unbelief. God will do so if you ask him as he refuses us nothing. Most things are about faith, not knowing. I was at a talk with our Bishop this weekend and he mentioned that we Catholics have to have the ability to be at home in mystery. The way I think of it is this, when you are a child your parents often say to you, you wont understand I will tell you when you are grown up. Some of these mysteries or matters of God are like this too, God may as well be saying to us, you won’t understand, I will tell you when you are grown up. In other words when we are in heaven we are likely to have them revealed to us or to have no need to know them. That is how I see it . I think you need a lot of patience to be a Catholic or in fact a Christian and humility, to leave a lot of things to God who is mighty when we are not. But saying that it is certainly worth asking him, I have often asked what complex things were and he has let me know in simple terms.

 

[godisgood77]

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

Yes you can be a Catholic if you do not believe everything the Church teaches. The Church uses it authority relative to infallibility in a very, very sparing way and allows for great diversity of opinion on my topics.

For instance the Church allows Catholics to believe in Marian apparitions or not…

Plus, there is a think called loyal dissent… that you could read up on.