Is it a sin to question the teachings of the CC?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Padraig1972
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you saying that people should just follow because someone says “because the Church says so,”???
Not me and not because “someone says”. The Magesterium has made the statement about obstinate doubt (voluntary doubt).

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief.

Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated, doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

(CCC 2088)
 
Not me and not because “someone says”. The Magesterium has made the statement about obstinate doubt (voluntary doubt).

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief.

Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated, doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

(CCC 2088)
The OP doesn’t sound like they are experiencing anything “voluntary” in their doubt, and writing doubt off in such a way just makes for a circular argument to force the laity to stay in line.
 
Not me and not because “someone says”. The Magesterium has made the statement about obstinate doubt (voluntary doubt).

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief.

Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated, doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

(CCC 2088)
But people should work on understanding their faith rather than accepting things blindly. Faith need not be blind, the Church teaches that.
 
I got some talking to do.
I got (a lot) of reading to do.
I got some serious thinking to do.

I have no problems admitting that. So i have said to God, in open, in pure words.
May God be with you in all of these.
 
The OP doesn’t sound like they are experiencing anything “voluntary” in their doubt, and writing doubt off in such a way just makes for a circular argument to force the laity to stay in line.
It does not seem voluntary to me either. But I was answering the question asked of me. I originally stated about the canons I posted that “It is what is necessary to eliminate doubt (about proper behavior and attitude and belief) once the teaching of the Church occurs.” Meaning once a person has been taught.
 
But people should work on understanding their faith rather than accepting things blindly. Faith need not be blind, the Church teaches that.
Some aspects of the faith are incomprehensible so it is necessary to follow what the Church teaches lamb-like.

I will give an example of something that requires difinitive assent. Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote something which many have not understood:Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren I declare that the church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the church’s faithful. (1994 Ordinatio Sacerdotalis)

Later Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:
In view of a magisterial text of the weight of the present Apostolic Letter, inevitably another question is raised: how binding is this document? It is explicitly stated that what is affirmed here must be definitively held in the Church, and that this question is no longer open to the interplay of differing opinions. Is this therefore an act of dogmatizing? Here one must answer that the Pope is not proposing any new dogmatic formula, but is confirming a certainty which has been constantly lived and held firm in the Church. In the technical language one should say: here we have an act of the ordinary Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff, an act therefore which is not a solemn definition ex cathedra, even though in terms of content a doctrine is presented which is to be considered definitive. In other words, a certainty already existing in the Church, but now questioned by some, is confirmed by the Pope’s apostolic authority. It has been given a concrete expression, which also puts in a binding form what has always been lived

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) on October 28, 1995 answered a dubium on this:
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk. 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.
 
Yes, where the Church has not given a teaching. But where the Church has made a teaching to be held,
Yes, but one of Padraig’s questions is which church is the one true Church – in particular, whether Orthodoxy or Catholicism is the one true Church.
 
Because the liturgy, the traditions and keeping it as close as possible to the roots does really matter to me. Have written e-mails to two orthodox priests (in the two russian orthodox parishes we have here) and will also hear what my confession-father/parish priest has to say about my doubts-questions.
 
Because the liturgy, the traditions and keeping it as close as possible to the roots does really matter to me. Have written e-mails to two orthodox priests (in the two russian orthodox parishes we have here) and will also hear what my confession-father/parish priest has to say about my doubts-questions.
For what it’s worth, I think that’s wise. My approach (which I realize that many, including some of my fellow traditionalists, will disagree with) is to talk/dialogue with Eastern Orthodox and find out why they believe what they believe, rather than isolating myself from them out of fear that they might-make-too-much-sense.
 
My personal response to Orthodoxy: Christ said Peter is the Rock. The Orthodox say Peter left the Church. But how can a house stand without a foundation? It cannot, there for, the Catholic Church is the Church.
 
My personal response to Orthodoxy: Christ said Peter is the Rock. The Orthodox say Peter left the Church. But how can a house stand without a foundation? It cannot, there for, the Catholic Church is the Church.
No, we don’t say that. The bishop of Rome is not Peter, nor do we believe him to be Peter’s only successor.
 
No, we don’t say that. The bishop of Rome is not Peter, nor do we believe him to be Peter’s only successor.
I mean the Pope. Even with the idea of others being Peter’s successor, the Orthodox still believe in Primacy, so how can a House stand without a pretty significant portion of the foundation?
 
No, we don’t say that. The bishop of Rome is not Peter, nor do we believe him to be Peter’s only successor.
This makes me curious as i want to learn and my question maybe sound harsh or naive, but if the orthodox don`t trust Peters chair, does that not mean that they have doubts in Lord Jesus Christ giving Peter the task to found the church?

Any good litterature or links would be nice too. I got so many questions, but do not want to scare or upset anyone (misunderstandings online are so easy to happen…).
 
This makes me curious as i want to learn and my question maybe sound harsh or naive, but if the orthodox don`t trust Peters chair, does that not mean that they have doubts in Lord Jesus Christ giving Peter the task to found the church?

Any good litterature or links would be nice too. I got so many questions, but do not want to scare or upset anyone (misunderstandings online are so easy to happen…).
Have you read the tracts on this website e.g. **Peter the Rock **and Was Peter in Rome? etc?

Also it is Christ who founded and builds His Church…on Peter.
 
This makes me curious as i want to learn and my question maybe sound harsh or naive, but if the orthodox don`t trust Peters chair, does that not mean that they have doubts in Lord Jesus Christ giving Peter the task to found the church?
I think what Cavaradossi is saying is that he doesn’t agree with the premise that Rome is Peter’s chair.
 
I think what Cavaradossi is saying is that he doesn’t agree with the premise that Rome is Peter’s chair.
As some sort of metaphysical construct, you are right, I would disagree with that. I have no problems, however, with Rome having that title as an honorific title, much in the same way that I haver no problem with the title Ecumenical Patriarch or the Patriarch of Alexandria’s title “judge of the universe”.
 
As some sort of metaphysical construct, you are right, I would disagree with that. I have no problems, however, with Rome having that title as an honorific title, much in the same way that I haver no problem with the title Ecumenical Patriarch or the Patriarch of Alexandria’s title “judge of the universe”.
Thanks for the clear up. I was born curious, so do not be suprised if i asked some more questions. Got much reading to do, can see that. And praying.
 
No questions are a valuable part of the faith. If you seek answers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top