Is "belief" of ALL Catholic teachings required?

[TedDC]

The Church was formed by Christ around himself and it is he who gives her truth and true life. It is the Holy Spirit who guides his Church …sent to her from Christ and the Father…guiding into all truth…as Jesus promised.

Jesus of Nazareth formed the Church …and built it around him …not the other way around.

I wish to express my honest hope for a return to the name…

I do not believe the claim of today’s institutional Catholic Church that it is the Church that Jesus founded.

 

[mangy_dog]

I changed my “name” - and actually found a closer and clearer connection to God for having shed all of the stuff built up on and around Him by the Church.

These are heroic times we live in,

The solution is within and not without - please return to the One, true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as its first Pope - 264 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI. I promise you that the gates of hell will not prevail against her.

Come back Ted.

 

[TedDC]

These are heroic times we live in,

The solution is within and not without - please return to the One, true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as its first Pope - 264 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI. I promise you that the gates of hell will not prevail against her.

Come back Ted.

Consistency does not equal truth. It just equals…consistency.

As I said, I simply don’t believe that today’s Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded.

 

[Bookcat]

I do not believe the claim of today’s institutional Catholic Church that it is the Church that Jesus founded.

Well hopefully such will change …for the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded etc…

 

[TedDC]

The Church was formed by Christ around himself and it is he who gives her truth and true life. It is the Holy Spirit who guides his Church …sent to her from Christ and the Father…guiding into all truth…as Jesus promised.

Jesus of Nazareth formed the Church …and built it around him …not the other way around.

I wish to express my honest hope for a return to the name…

Just to clarify: what I learned is that I never actually believed many of the fundamental Church teachings - I sort of took them for granted, without any critical thought or effort to understand them. And once I began to understand the things I nominally professed to believe, I realized that I did not in fact believe them. So it wasn’t as much a matter of leaving the Church as it was a realization that I never belonged in the first place.

 

[Bookcat]

Just to clarify: what I learned is that I never actually believed many of the fundamental Church teachings - I sort of took them for granted, without any critical thought or effort to understand them. And once I began to understand the things I nominally professed to believe, I realized that I did not in fact believe them. So it wasn’t as much a matter of leaving the Church as it was a realization that I never belonged in the first place.

The Gift of Faith was actually infused into your soul at Baptism…you did belong…

Later you decided that you did not accept what had been given…

The door though stands open…and the invitation to return remains in your hands.

 

[mangy_dog]

I cant’ believe this !

I lost a whole paragraph of reply to Ted in mid sentence.

Truly agravating. And all because of an incoming CAF message. Talk about a glitch. Unbelievable.

 

[TedDC]

The Gift of Faith was actually infused into your soul at Baptism…you did belong…

Later you decided that you did not accept what had been given…

The door though stands open…and the invitation to return remains in your hands.

I was not given anything; I never had faith. I was simply a nominal Catholic, not knowing or understanding many of the basic tenets of the faith.

 

[IamDust]

Ted,

that is really sad, but truly understandable because none of us knew much, if anything at the beginning our lives as Catholics.

The question becomes if you have ever asked for faith? Or an increase of faith?

I found that to be an incredibly important part of my journey from being a nominal Catholic to being a believing, knowledgeable, practicing, and growing Catholic…a man of Christ. A man seeking God’s own heart.

I encourage you to pray for that gift from our Father. As Him to open your heart and mind. Become a truth seeker.

All the best Ted!

 

[Bookcat]

I was not given anything; I never had faith. I was simply a nominal Catholic, not knowing or understanding many of the basic tenets of the faith.

You were given the gift of faith in Baptism (beyond understanding).

Such though needs to be catechized…over time…to learn the contents of the Faith etc.

 

[TedDC]

You were given the gift of faith in Baptism (beyond understanding).

Such though needs to be catechized…over time…to learn the contents of the Faith etc.

It was that learning which caused me to realize that I don’t believe much of the contents of the faith.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So this begs the question: as a “potential convert”, shall I forever maintain this status until such a time as I “believe” all dogma? Or is it acceptable to believe most dogma (such as the trinity, begotten an not made, etc.) but be in “formation” or “catechesis” (spelling!) about others (such as the assumption of Mary)?

Yes. Many Catholics struggle in understanding many teachings. The goal is acceptance, but the Church doesn’t outright believe in total acceptance from day one. That is why RCIA lasts a year or in the past, more. Some struggle their entire lives. The very least the Church asks is one not to reject her teachings. There is always time to learn more. The Church is confident that the truth will always be accepted even though it takes time. That is why many theologians over the centuries have painstakingly tried to come up with ways of explaining the same time. Dogmas never really introduced any new belief, just new definitions of the same old belief.

 

[Bookcat]

It was that learning which caused me to realize that I don’t believe much of the contents of the faith.

We invite you to keep seeking…keep reading…keep learning…

It was largely learning that led me to convert …and enter into full communion with the Catholic Church…

The door is open…

 

[kepha1]

Years ago I purchased CCC’s for all my family here including inlaws. I don’t think any of them have looked at them. Whenever I talk about a particular teaching they ask how I know about it!!

Thanks for the link but it does not help in knowing which teachings in the CCC are infallible or non-infallible or disciplines. That is not something that falls naturally into place. You have to be told and remember what they are.
Haven’t you noticed that Catholics in these forums are continually asking the category of the Church teachings and nobody understands why the Church doesn’t either produce a list categorising them or has a note at the end of each CCC paragraph.
I’ve read and regularly refer to the CCC but I don’t know the categories of all the teachings therein.
Why should we have to guess?

You don’t. You don’t need 5 Ph.D.'s either. Accept all the teachings of the Church as authoritive with humble obedience. Failing to understand a teaching does not automatically mean one must rebel against it, it means there are obstacles to faith that need overcoming.

 

[TedDC]

You don’t. You don’t need 5 Ph.D.'s either. Accept all the teachings of the Church as authoritive with humble obedience. Failing to understand a teaching does not automatically mean one must rebel against it, it means there are obstacles to faith that need overcoming.

I don’t believe the Church has that kind of authority. It makes the claim, of course - it’s inherent in the nature of organizations to seek power and perpetuate themselves - but claiming to be an authority doesn’t make it so.

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t believe the Church has that kind of authority. It makes the claim, of course - it’s inherent in the nature of organizations to seek power and perpetuate themselves - but claiming to be an authority doesn’t make it so.

Yes you have said this.

And of course…simply saying what you have said …does not make that so…

---

As to our what we believe

It is our Faith in the words and revelation of Christ.

And we hold fast to it.

and pray for your rediscovery.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t believe the Church has that kind of authority. It makes the claim, of course - it’s inherent in the nature of organizations to seek power and perpetuate themselves - but claiming to be an authority doesn’t make it so.

The Church by itself has no authority. Of course her authority comes from Jesus Christ her groom.

 

[TedDC]

Yes you have said this.

And of course…simply saying what you have said …does not make that so…

---

As to our what we believe

It is our Faith in the words and revelation of Christ.

And we hold fast to it.

and pray for your rediscovery.

It is your faith in the Church’s interpretation of the words and revelation of Christ.

 

[freerf]

Let’s explore that thought futher then…

Based upon faith, which version of the Book of Daniel do you believe is inspired? The larger, more ancient Catholic version or the truncated Protestant version?

The reason I ask, is that ALL of the ancient Christian manuscripts of Sacred Scripture of other than fragmentary form have a longer version of the Book of Daniel than your Protestant Bible does. ALL OF THEM. Every Church of Christ prior to the Protestant Reformation had a larger Book of Daniel. ALL OF THEM. So, given this evidence, how does one FORCE themselves to reject this ancient version of inspired Biblical texts for the truncated version which the Protestants use?

Additionally, the Protestant Book of Esther does not even mention God! Doesn’t that seem unbelievable to you? All of the books of the Bible mention God, except the Protestant Book of Esther, which is also a truncated version of the Catholic version found in EVERY ancient Christian manuscript of Sacred Scripture, accepted by EVERY Church of Christ before Protestantism. The larger, inspired Book of Esther DOES mention God, quite often actually. How does one FORCE themselves to believe that a version of Esther that is Godless is actually the inspired version, when all Christian manuscripts of ancient origin testify to a different conclusion?

Shouldn’t you ALSO believe tradition–at least the tradition regarding Daniel and Esther–to be based on faith? If not, why not?

Some of the subjects you bring up are new to me. They are interesting but certainly not troubling. A “truncated” book still holds the word of God. More importantly, by faith I hold true that God will reveal His truth to me and will not let me stray. I suppose that is why I’m interested, but not troubled.

 

[freerf]

Dogma = the revelation of God. The word actually comes from Scripture. After definitively deciding a formerly disputed matter regarding circumcision, the apostles sent their councilar “decrees” (Gk dogmata) throughout the Church. You may find it difficult to imagine God demanding that the faithful assent to the teachings of those he ordained to teach in His name, but it was a decision guided by the Holy Spirit, and therefore a Divinely revealed dogma which demands the assent of all the faithful. We are not permitted to reject the revelation of God without consequences.

Jesus said “He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me.” The Bible teaches “Obey your leaders and submit to them” (Heb 13:17). Jesus is the one doing the demanding.

Heresy has consequences. Paul taught, “after a first and second admonishment, a heretic avoid.” Paul was a pretty demanding fellow. Matt 18 also teaches that the Church is the final arbiter when brethren sin against one another, and heresy is definitely a sin against Christian brethren. Matt 18 teaches that if one does not accept fraternal correction, one should bring the witness of two or three brethren. If they will not listen to them, we should tell it to the Church. If he will not even be corrected by the Church, then we are to treat them as separated brethren. Sounds awefully demanding, doesn’t it? This is what I mean by demanding nature of the deposit of faith. It’s Biblical. If one chooses to reject the testimony of those ordained by God, they do so at their peril.

I think you’ve hit on it. My faith is in God not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church asks for your faith in Her, which to my Protestant way of thinking is troubling. (That’s not to say it isn’t biblical, friends.) Possibly once faith in the CC is established, I suppose the rest falls into place.