As clear as a Church existing over 2000 years, and being the only Church for over a thousand years? Or as clear as the ‘Trinity’ maybe? Just food for thought
Just remember that Jesus said:
[bolding & underline mine]
philvaz.com/apologetics/a45.htm
Sigh. No worries. I am not offended. I suppose you may be right. It’s just difficult for me because I feel that in just about EVERY other area the Church’s teachings are so rational and make so much sense, and the teachings in this one area simply aren’t. Far from me “bashing” Cahholocism (which I have been accused of on this site), I am, as you say, almost desperate to come to a resolution on this BECAUSE of my love for the Church. I want very, very much to resolve this and find peace with the issue one way or another. This “obedience for the sake of obedience” just sucks and is untenable.
In a bit of a “light” vein, as a parent, have you yet used the response…“Do it because I said so” to your little one? If you haven’t you probably will…
And I’m suggesting that the desperation is not helping you, because I’ve ‘been there,’ too. It is not only with religion that we experience this in life. When we ‘want so desperately’ for various things we sometimes, especially then, do not find them because the desperation overwhelms our receptivity and our vision, which is key to clarity. Obedience for the sake of obedience (although I wouldn’t quite put it that way) is not an intellectual concept but a spiritual one. Which is why I think you need to work much less on your intellectual life and much more on your prayer life. Not a ‘talking’ prayer life, but a silent & yielding one.
)Thank you so much for sharing your story. May God bless you in your struggles! Maybe I am just being called to obedience without understanding for now.In a bit of a “light” vein, as a parent, have you yet used the response…“Do it because I said so” to your little one? If you haven’t you probably will…
Yes the “obedience for the sake of obedience” thing can be difficult, but it can also be an eye opening experience.
I struggled for some time with sexual issues stemming from my wife’s slow decline into Alzheimer’s disease. First came the how long can we continue to have intercourse when she was losing her grasp on who I was and what our relationship was. Then came the inevitable struggle over my need for release (something that had not been an issue in our marriage) and the Church’s teachings on masturbation.
I could think of all sorts of rational ideas of why I should be allowed to do what I wanted…But I couldn’t ultimately resolve it to the Church’s blanket condemnation and my desire to be obedient to Christ in The Church, whom he gave authority to bind and loose (see why I latched on to these passages?).
So I struggled, I fell, I picked myself up and confessed. I worked to make my wife’s life as full as I could and devoted myself to her and also to CAF (a lifeline for me).
I’ve learned so much - gained many benefits - from my, “obedience for the sake of obedience”. I’ve learned much more about what is important. About “making"love” in new and wondrous ways that have nothing to do with “sex”. I’ve learned about patience (I still struggle), Humility, and forbearance, and how wonderfully Loving is our God to put up with us…
Sorry - I’m starting to ramble…
What I’m trying to say is that, sometimes we have to “obey” without understanding in order for understanding to come.
Peace
James
Thank you for this! I think I will take it to Mary.And I’m suggesting that the desperation is not helping you, because I’ve ‘been there,’ too. It is not only with religion that we experience this in life. When we ‘want so desperately’ for various things we sometimes, especially then, do not find them because the desperation overwhelms our receptivity and our vision, which is key to clarity. Obedience for the sake of obedience (although I wouldn’t quite put it that way) is not an intellectual concept but a spiritual one. Which is why I think you need to work much less on your intellectual life and much more on your prayer life. Not a ‘talking’ prayer life, but a silent & yielding one.
You need, i.m.o., to put this in Mary’s hands. She’s fantastic. Put at her feet your supposed ‘need to have a resolution,’ and just sit in silent prayer and quiet your mind. The ‘resolution’ may come faster that way (she’s very speedy), or at the very least, you will feel a temporary resolution or less of a need to have The Cosmos all figured out at the point of your relatively young years. What you need, imo., is less intellectual resolution and more peace. If most practicing Catholics, including clergy, have some remaining doubts or questions that they themselves, despite years of study (more than yours) have not ‘resolved,’ what makes you think that it is more likely that perfect clarity is a realistic goal, especially in the apparently extremely near future? (I have yet to understand what the hurry is, by the way. There’s some kind of artificial deadline that’s driving you. What’s happening tomorrow or next week?
Lk 2:18-19: ""And all who heard it wondered at the things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart."
(One translation renders “trreasured” as “saved,” another as “kept.”) In any case, there’s nothing in there about Mary analyzing it to death and rushing to a perfect resolution, and even when the past tense is used (“pondered”) and not the participle, the sense is ongoing. To ponder is to let things sit.
First, what is the difference you perceive?
If you can accept that the Church CAN objectively be correct at certain times, I don’t understand how you can claim that infallibility cannot exist in the Church. Please explain.
Such is not the line from Canon Law.
Are you speaking of papal infallibility?Any problems I have with certain Church teachings I believe really come back to the question of infallibility and Church authority. I think if I could resolve this issue for myself then everything else would basically fall into place.
Here are a few concerns I have: people always use the statement that Christ said He would not leave us orphans as a promise of infallibility. I don’t see this AT ALL.
People also use the statement of Christ that He would guide us into all truth as proof of infallibility. There is a difference between being guided into truth and possessing the infallible truth about all faith and morals at any given time.
I don’t see anything specific about infallibility anywhere in scripture, and the Church itself didn’t even broach the subject until quite recently, which seems sort of “convenient” to me.
On top of that, every time there is a mistake made by the Church or a pope, somebody goes through what seems like a lot of legalistic verbal gymnastics to somehow prove that such and such was never “declared ex cathedra” or “consistently taught by the magisterium” or “true Church doctrine” or some such thing to prove that it “doesn’t count” or something, when in reality, Jesus never talked about infallibility that we know of and CERTAINLY not in such detail that this kind of hair-splitting about it makes any sense whatsoever.
Believe me, I have done MASSIVE research on this. I understand the “primary and secondary objects of infallibility” and the ordinary universal magisterium vs. Ex cathedra statements, etc., so I don’t need any of that kind of information.
I’m also not looking for the argument that if the Church is wrong about one thing then everything else would be trash, because that’s just not true. Just because my Mom told me Santa was real or was wrong about an answer when she was helping me with my homework in the 4th grade doesn’t mean I can’t trust anything she says to this day.
I’m really searching here and I just haven’t found anything to satisfy these nagging doubts and questions I have about infallibility
Of course, I have faith in the Church, but I have a hard time understanding or putting total confidence in this doctrine.
Sorry, I need to rephrase this. It’s not that I don’t BELIEVE in the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, it’s that I think the criteria for this kind of infallibility are so arbitrary, that almost anything could be said to fall under it and that leads to problems for me. Some Popes interpret it narrowly, others more broadly. What does this type of infallibility entail? Exactly how many bishops must teach a doctrine for it to qualify? Do they have to agree with it or can they be just following orders under the pain of excommunication? For how long must they teach these doctrines before enough time has passed for it to be considered infallible?
PS: A doctrine that is taught infallibly via the universal ordinary Magisterium would then not be being spoken of here. It is only speaking to what I note above.
