Infallibility of Church?

[Dovekin]

My original post was to solicit opinions about whether I could become a Catholic if I did not believe every doctrine the Catholic Church teaches. And the consensus appears to be that I must believe every doctrine without exception. Therefore, it seems that I cannot become a Catholic.

Perhaps here is a consensus hat you must believe every doctrine, but that in no way acknowledges what I wrote. There are a variety of doctrines that call for a variety of responses, from belief to “holding” to not rejecting. Faith in many cases is more about who teaches than about what is taught. (that raises an intracatholic controversy that helps explain why any consensus reached here is not the only consensus Catholics reach on these issues.)

I accept that the Catechism presents what the Church teaches. I do not believe it is without error. In fact, I think it likely contains errors, but I do not know what they are. I trust that the Holy Spirit will guide us to the truth if those errors become important.

When I read your explanation of doubt, I meant to respond but by the time I could, you and Gorgias had spun off into a discussion I cannot follow. Isn’t the Holy Spirit given in baptism to Catholics, Calvinists and Evangelicals? What is so “mutually exclusive” about the doctrines cited? Why is it important to this discussion?

 

[goout]

My original post was to solicit opinions about whether I could become a Catholic if I did not believe every doctrine the Catholic Church teaches. And the consensus appears to be that I must believe every doctrine without exception. Therefore, it seems that I cannot become a Catholic.

It’s like a marriage. If you considered marrying a woman but held yourself back in a couple of different areas, you should discern more deeply what marriage is. It’s not merely about wanting to be married, it’s about knowing who you are signing up for and whether you want to commit your whole person.

For instance:
“I promise to love and honor you, but if you’re handicapped I will have move on to someone else”. Then you are not fully committed to the marriage. You may be in love with the idea of marriage, but you are not fully committed with your whole person.

Likewise in our relationship to Christ through His Church. Belief can be seen as minimalist understanding and profession of doctrines. And we do need to understand those to the best of our abilities. But Faith…is a whole new level of commitment.
Faith is the response of a person to God’s grace. It is a commitment between persons, not just an intellectual exercise.

Who can explain the Eucharist, truly? Word and reason will fail. The Ressurection. Who can explain that to a skeptic?

At some point you must admit that you are limited in your understanding, and at the same time God is calling you into communion in the Catholic Church and you should follow that call. This call is personal, and it asks for your whole life. Professing the Creed at Easter vigil is just the start.
Your commitment of faith will aid your understanding, and the more deeply you understand the deeper your faith will grow.

 

[steve-b]

Paytheon:

Jesus Christ made a promise, Jesus Christ is perfect and never lies. To refute or rebut a fact, a promise made by Christ himself, means you place your thinking over His. The original sin, Adam and Eve chose to decide what Good and Evil is over God’s definition of Good and Evil is precisely the argument you’re making; that your definition of who has salvation is greater than Jesus Christ. Good luck with that

Perhaps you misunderstood. I gave what I have heard is the Catholic rebuttal to the thief on cross being saved by faith (alone) in Christ…

I am Protestant and of course would agree there was no church, even Catholic, at that time. (Salvation was, is, of the Jews). Jesus saves and quite suredly, as the beautiful example of the thief…cry out to Him and you will be saved, confess Him with your mouth and you will be saved. So it is with every believer, we must die and yet find new life at the feet of our bloodied Lord. When He lifts you up, you will know it!

for clarification,

When the Church, officially began, is when the HS descended upon the apostles as tongues of fire… (Pentecost) and from that point they went out and started building the Church.

And

from Acts, 9:31, the Church was called

From the Greek Study Bible
Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς
Translation:
ἐκκλησία = church ,
καθ’ = according to ,
ὅλης = whole / all / complete / universal ,
τῆς = the ,
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

Ignatius of Antioch, ordained bishop ~68-69 a…d., and direct disciple of John the apostle, wrote 6 letters to the Church in 6 locations. Ignatius, in writing, calls the Church he is writing to, in which he is made bishop in, the Catholic Church ch 8 . Only one place he could have learned that from, the apostles. And the name has been there since the apostles.

 

[Paytheon]

Another scary passage.

[Mat 7:13]

“You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way."

 

[Wannano]

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.

Boy, Glenn…you sure have a fantastic way of describing my very own thoughts!

 

[steve-b]

Another scary passage.

[Mat 7:13]

“You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way."

And

the reason few are saved is because
[Mt 24:12-14] Jesus explained

And

Peter adds 1 Peter 4:17-18

 

[Glenn]

As the apostle taught, (under the inspiration of the HS) those who are in division cause division, keep division going, from the Church [aren’t serving Our Lord but their own selfish appetites. And ultimately the apostle says who they ultimately serve…Satan

So you’re saying that as a Protestant, not belonging to Church of Rome, I serve Satan and am thus not saved?

 

[steve-b]

Jesus says to the thief on the cross: Luke 23:42 “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

There was no Catholic church then. You do not need to be “Catholic” to receive salvation. That’s simply fact!

Just a few thoughts

Jesus knew what He would do forever, before the foundation of the world.

True, the Church would officially come into being at Pentecost 50 days after the resurrection.
True, the good thief was told by Jesus that he would be with Jesus in paradise that day.

I would just say, looking forward from that day, that doesn’t negate the requirement of all humanity being in the Church that Jesus suffered and died for. Just look at ALL the consequences scripture warns about for those who won’t enter or remain in this Church

that said

What the good thief did and said from the cross he was nailed to, was in and of itself…HUGE What the good thief did and the few words he spoke, from his own cross, sums up the entire faith. And he did it nailed to his own cross, suffering beyond words.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

As the apostle taught, (under the inspiration of the HS) those who are in division cause division, keep division going, from the Church [aren’t serving Our Lord but their own selfish appetites. And ultimately the apostle says who they ultimately serve…Satan

So you’re saying that as a Protestant, not belonging to Church of Rome, I serve Satan and am thus not saved?

NOT me. After all who am I?

Whose name is on the passage I quoted? Paul.

Who was Paul writing to in that letter mentioned? To the Church of Rome. Was this a suggestion or a serious warning he’s making?

Paul says ultimately division comes from who? Satan. In context of the passage, that is who Paul says people who divide are serving. I didn’t say it, Paul said that. AND whose feet did Paul say that Satan (the source of division) would soon be crushed under? The Church of Rome. And we wait for this to happen

Fast forward in time

Who did the Protestants divide from in the 16th century revolt? the Church of Rome. What would Paul say about THAT? Romans 16:17-20 , & Galatians 5:19-21 This same Greek word διχοστασίας dichostasia = division / dissension / factions /sedition (is the same word in both Rom 16:17 And Gal 5:19…)

AND

From that revolt, Protestantism has broken among themselves, into 10’s of thousands of individual sects all doing their own thing.

AND

Most if not all will say, the bible is their sole source of truth, as in scripture alone. So I ask, what does scripture say about division and those who do it or keep it going? Look at the consequences above in those scriptures

Looking at history

Have you heard the name John Henry Newman? He was a Protestant of the Anglican stripe. We know Henry VIII created THAT stripe Newman was in. Long story short, Newman wanted to investigate his own questions that he had about all the divisions in Christianity that he saw… And after doing ALL his research, while still a Protestant, made the following phrase popular. His conclusion was "To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant"

AND he found

To be deep in history is to be Catholic. And to not be Catholic then, if one is to really take scripture seriously , which he did, and take warnings and consequences for division seriously, which he did, is to effect one’s salvation.

What did he do? It took him awhile, but He became Catholic
Newman’s reader

 

[Gorgias]

So you’re saying that as a Protestant, not belonging to Church of Rome, I serve Satan and am thus not saved?

No… we’d say that those who separated are the ones who bear responsibility. You never separated from the Catholic Church, so we wouldn’t make that claim about you. We would say that we’re in imperfect communion with you, but we share certain graces and gifts of the Spirit.

Who was Paul writing to in that letter mentioned? To the Church of Rome.

Right: so, he’s talking to people who are part of the (Catholic) Church, not people who were never initiated into it.

 

[goout]

Glenn:

So you’re saying that as a Protestant, not belonging to Church of Rome, I serve Satan and am thus not saved?

No… we’d say that those who separated are the ones who bear responsibility. You never separated from the Catholic Church, so we wouldn’t make that claim about you. We would say that we’re in imperfect communion with you, but we share certain graces and gifts of the Spirit.

Who was Paul writing to in that letter mentioned? To the Church of Rome.

Right: so, he’s talking to people who are part of the (Catholic) Church, not people who were never initiated into it.

Just to clarify the bolded: Gorgias is referring to those who were Catholic, and left the faith, not those who inherited a faith tradition.
And that is the official magisterial thought on the issue.
You as a protestant who were born into a tradition are not charged with the sin of separation, although you have a duty to pursue the truth in good faith like anyone else.

And the second point is that Paul is speaking to everyone. It is not only non-Catholics who cause division. Catholics cause plenty of it also, and it could be said that Catholics are given much and have a correspondingly higher threshold of accountability. “to whom much is given…”

 

[steve-b]

Glenn:

So you’re saying that as a Protestant, not belonging to Church of Rome, I serve Satan and am thus not saved?

No… we’d say that those who separated are the ones who bear responsibility. You never separated from the Catholic Church, so we wouldn’t make that claim about you. We would say that we’re in imperfect communion with you, but we share certain graces and gifts of the Spirit.

Who was Paul writing to in that letter mentioned? To the Church of Rome.

Right: so, he’s talking to people who are part of the (Catholic) Church, not people who were never initiated into it.

And

The Church they (the apostles) are building, and in extension all who they teach and ordain, in this Church are ALL ONE in ONE Church which is here today, the Catholic Church. There is no other Church THEY are building. Point being, as the apostle taught, Division from the ONE Church being built, is condemned.

 

[Glenn]

Are you wanting to receive without becoming a Catholic? I ask because you say your hope is the Catholic Church will accept you based on your professions and not Hers.

Actually, I would like to become a Catholic, part of the community, but I find that I am unable to believe every doctrine that the Catholic Church teaches. Second best would be if the Catholic Church would permit Protestants to receive the Eucharist, based upon the fact that they are also members of the mystical body of Christ. I understand that Orthodox believers are permitted that right.

I totally agree that God can and does use fallible men. However, I think the Bible shows us over and over that when He used these fallible men (Moses, Peter, Paul, Matthew, James, etc…) they taught infallible. It just doesn’t make sense, to me anyway, that He would give the first century Christians infallible teachings (straight from these fallible men’s mouths) and leave the rest of humanity wondering if what we read (His sacred Word) and interpret today is what was actually taught by the Apostles.

Agreed, but I think you’re talking about a different issue there. On one hand, we’ve been talking about the promise of the protection of the Church by Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Here, you’re talking about individuals and how they live out their Christian lives. Paul warns individuals about backsliding… not churches (local or universal). Paul calls local churches to one single identical faith.

There are a variety of doctrines that call for a variety of responses, from belief to “holding” to not rejecting. Faith in many cases is more about who teaches than about what is taught. (that raises an intra-catholic controversy that helps explain why any consensus reached here is not the only consensus Catholics reach on these issues.)

I accept that the Catechism presents what the Church teaches. I do not believe it is without error. In fact, I think it likely contains errors, but I do not know what they are. I trust that the Holy Spirit will guide us to the truth if those errors become important.

Really good comments! I’m not sure I can think them through all at once. And I’m not sure if they even require thinking on my part. This is probably not the thread in which to discuss all of my doubts. I need to continue to pray that God will turn any lights on that are still off. And maybe as questions arise, I can bring them up individually in separate threads. I really appreciate everyone’s feedback. But it is not as if I haven’t prayed about these issues–for years. At times it has been excruciating, and so I have had to give it a rest. And that is what I long for–rest–but at this point, all I have to go on is Scripture. If the Church of Rome is the true Church, then Scripture and prayer should lead me there. But I can’t just accept it. I must believe it with my whole heart, mind, and strength. Pray for me.

 

[steve-b]

Gorgias:

Glenn:

So you’re saying that as a Protestant, not belonging to Church of Rome, I serve Satan and am thus not saved?

No… we’d say that those who separated are the ones who bear responsibility. You never separated from the Catholic Church, so we wouldn’t make that claim about you. We would say that we’re in imperfect communion with you, but we share certain graces and gifts of the Spirit.

Who was Paul writing to in that letter mentioned? To the Church of Rome.

Right: so, he’s talking to people who are part of the (Catholic) Church, not people who were never initiated into it.

Just to clarify the bolded: Gorgias is referring to those who were Catholic, and left the faith, not those who inherited a faith tradition.
And that is the official magisterial thought on the issue.
You as a protestant who were born into a tradition are not charged with the sin of separation, although you have a duty to pursue the truth in good faith like anyone else.

And the second point is that Paul is speaking to everyone. It is not only non-Catholics who cause division. Catholics cause plenty of it also, and it could be said that Catholics are given much and have a correspondingly higher threshold of accountability. “to whom much is given…”

AND

even though one is born into a system of errors, does it mean they have a permanent pass or excuse for remaining in their errors. Otherwise, THAT would make us all robots. Or It would also excuse us for our entire life, for never having to be responsible for our own Ignorance and actions

 

[goout]

No of course not, no one said that.

 

[Gorgias]

Second best would be if the Catholic Church would permit Protestants to receive the Eucharist, based upon the fact that they are also members of the mystical body of Christ. I understand that Orthodox believers are permitted that right.

Actually, since the Orthodox believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and since they have a valid priesthood, the Catholic Church sees them as a valid Church*. Therefore, we would allow them to receive. However, the Orthodox Church does not allow its members to receive at Catholic Churches, so we ask Orthodox Christians to follow their Church’s guidance and not receive at Catholic Masses.

*The Catholic Church sees Protestant denominations as “ecclesial communities”, not “churches” (in a strict sense) because they do not have a valid apostolic priesthood and the sacraments that such a priesthood is able to convey.

 

[Wannano]

Gorgias:

Glenn:

So you’re saying that as a Protestant, not belonging to Church of Rome, I serve Satan and am thus not saved?

No… we’d say that those who separated are the ones who bear responsibility. You never separated from the Catholic Church, so we wouldn’t make that claim about you. We would say that we’re in imperfect communion with you, but we share certain graces and gifts of the Spirit.

Who was Paul writing to in that letter mentioned? To the Church of Rome.

Right: so, he’s talking to people who are part of the (Catholic) Church, not people who were never initiated into it.

Just to clarify the bolded: Gorgias is referring to those who were Catholic, and left the faith, not those who inherited a faith tradition.
And that is the official magisterial thought on the issue.
You as a protestant who were born into a tradition are not charged with the sin of separation, although you have a duty to pursue the truth in good faith like anyone else.

And the second point is that Paul is speaking to everyone. It is not only non-Catholics who cause division. Catholics cause plenty of it also, and it could be said that Catholics are given much and have a correspondingly higher threshold of accountability. “to whom much is given…”

So is it fair then to say that those Catholics who are causing division are serving Satan?

 

[Wannano]

Glenn:

Second best would be if the Catholic Church would permit Protestants to receive the Eucharist, based upon the fact that they are also members of the mystical body of Christ. I understand that Orthodox believers are permitted that right.

Actually, since the Orthodox believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and since they have a valid priesthood, the Catholic Church sees them as a valid Church*. Therefore, we would allow them to receive. However, the Orthodox Church does not allow its members to receive at Catholic Churches, so we ask Orthodox Christians to follow their Church’s guidance and not receive at Catholic Masses.

*The Catholic Church sees Protestant denominations as “ecclesial communities”, not “churches” (in a strict sense) because they do not have a valid apostolic priesthood and the sacraments that such a priesthood is able to convey.

When I read the account of the early Church after Pentecost I can only derive that the requirement for participation in the Breaking of Bread was to repent and be baptized. Is there any evidence that proves differently?

 

[Gorgias]

When I read the account of the early Church after Pentecost I can only derive that the requirement for participation in the Breaking of Bread was to repent and be baptized. Is there any evidence that proves differently?

Excuse me for saying so, but that seems to be a rather odd way of looking at it. I think the most charitable response I could offer is to point out that there are different standards for joining an organization and for remaining in good standing in it.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

When I read the account of the early Church after Pentecost I can only derive that the requirement for participation in the Breaking of Bread was to repent and be baptized. Is there any evidence that proves differently?

Excuse me for saying so, but that seems to be a rather odd way of looking at it. I think the most charitable response I could offer is to point out that there are different standards for joining an organization and for remaining in good standing in it.

Honestly I do not follow your thought as to why that is an odd thought. What other requirements were there?