Is it true that a Catholic that doesn t believe Catholic Dogmas is excommunicated?

[peter26]

Firstly, I’m not scrupulous. The only reason I posted on this repeatedly was that I wanted a clear answer.

I talked to my pastor again about this tonight and he said that making public statements that contravene church dogmas, not just holding personal beliefs that conflict, is necessary for heresy. He said if not believing a particular doctrine makes you a heretic, most people are probably heretics at some point. So that’s reassuring. He also referred me to an article that summed up the main points of Lumen Gentium. I understand the exact teaching more, but I frankly don’t agree with it. But as long as that’s not heresy, I guess I’m just one of many cafeteria Catholics. Eh, we’ll see.

 

[tafan]

Okay, I am slowly learning that one must be very precise in posting on these forums.

I agree with the provision that one may not dissent from infallible dogmas. That wasn’t the jist of my comments. One may dissent (use the term disagree) with non infallible dogmas. The teaching on the use of artificial birth control is not infallible as is Mary was ever Virgin. Things like indulgences, relics, private revelation, Marian apparitions, teaching on the nature of sin, those are not infallible in the same sense that Jesus is present in body and mind, soul and divinity in the Eucharist, or Jesus is consubstantial with the Father. My point is, my dissent is mine only, it becomes extremely serious if preach it to others, but I have the free will and the right to follow my conscience privately, when it comes to non-infallible dogmas.

A very fine priest once said in a retreat seminar that what we as Catholics must believe and not dissent from is contained in the Creed said at Mass. I may not dissent from the dogma that Mary is the Mother of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, but I may privately dissent from the position that Mary showed the children at Fatima a vision of hell and it is a big pit of fire and brimstone. Marian apparitions are not dogma of the RCC. Just one example.

Shalom

It’s a rather weak example since the Church has no teaching about any private revelation, yet the church has lots of teachingss that are not expressed in the niceness creed.

 

[friardchips]

Firstly, I’m not scrupulous. The only reason I posted on this repeatedly was that I wanted a clear answer.

I talked to my pastor again about this tonight and he said that making public statements that contravene church dogmas, not just holding personal beliefs that conflict, is necessary for heresy. He said if not believing a particular doctrine makes you a heretic, most people are probably heretics at some point. So that’s reassuring. He also referred me to an article that summed up the main points of Lumen Gentium. I understand the exact teaching more, but I frankly don’t agree with it. But as long as that’s not heresy, I guess I’m just one of many cafeteria Catholics. Eh, we’ll see.

I’m relieved for one, that you are calmer. Worrying can be a sign that one is simply desiring the truth. I believe you did the right thing by going to see a priest.

So, have you read Acts, and the various letters, from St. Paul? If it has been a while, I can point a few out that help to certify understanding in regards to both your concerns…

Acts 9

Acts 11

Acts 20

1 Corinthians 16

Galatians 2

Ephesians 2

Ephesians 4

Ephesians 5

Ephesians 6

Philippians 4

Colossians 1

1 Thessalonians 1

1 Thessalonians 4

2 Thessalonians 1

1 Timothy 3

1 Timothy 5

2 Timothy 4

Philemon

Hebrews 3

Hebrews 8

Hebrews 9

Hebrews 12

(One would need a well-translated/interpreted Bible as opposed to a Bible in which the meanings and nuances have been removed due to over-simplification).

I have said in the past that the term ‘Christian’ was only used as a derogatory reference in Scripture, and although it might have been, at first, it was seemingly eventually coined by the ‘Church’ - the whole community of the faithful (in Scripture) - to describe believers; however, the first recorded use of the title ‘Catholic’, was by St. Ignatius of Antioch in 106AD, which is really early, and so, obviously the term ‘Church’ was eventually known to be the ‘Catholic Church’, and therefore, people in the Church (Catholic Church) obviously started to call themselves ‘Catholics’, instead of ‘Christians’ - probably when there were schisms in order to identify themselves as being with the true ‘Church’, though I think Catholics can be rightly called ‘Christians’ too, as the terms are really one and the same. <<

 

[friardchips]

Okay, I am slowly learning that one must be very precise in posting on these forums.

I agree with the provision that one may not dissent from infallible dogmas. That wasn’t the jist of my comments. One may dissent (use the term disagree) with non infallible dogmas. The teaching on the use of artificial birth control is not infallible as is Mary was ever Virgin. Things like indulgences, relics, private revelation, Marian apparitions, teaching on the nature of sin, those are not infallible in the same sense that Jesus is present in body and mind, soul and divinity in the Eucharist, or Jesus is consubstantial with the Father. My point is, my dissent is mine only, it becomes extremely serious if preach it to others, but I have the free will and the right to follow my conscience privately, when it comes to non-infallible dogmas.

A very fine priest once said in a retreat seminar that what we as Catholics must believe and not dissent from is contained in the Creed said at Mass. I may not dissent from the dogma that Mary is the Mother of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, but I may privately dissent from the position that Mary showed the children at Fatima a vision of hell and it is a big pit of fire and brimstone. Marian apparitions are not dogma of the RCC. Just one example.

Shalom

All Dogmas are infallible.

Dogmas are divinely-revealed doctrines.

Doctrines which are not Dogmas are branches from Divinely-revealed doctrines.

 

[peter26]

So, have you read Acts, and the various letters, from St. Paul? If it has been a while, I can point a few out that help to certify understanding in regards to both your concerns…

Thanks for this, I haven’t read this part of the Bible recently and I’ll certainly look these up.

 

[friardchips]

Thanks for this, I haven’t read this part of the Bible recently and I’ll certainly look these up.

Enjoy!

 

[Usagi]

Okay thanks for that. The main things I have an issue with are

1. The infallibility of the Pope
2. The notion that there is only one church which received a mandate from Christ.

These are not regarded as infallible dogmas?

Are you entirely certain that you understand what the Church actually teaches on these subjects?

People seem to have all kinds of weird ideas about what papal infallibility entails.

On the second issue, it seems to me it’s either trivially obvious (Jesus didn’t deliberately found multiple competing churches) or true but practically not that big a deal (since we hold that we are the most direct deescendant of that original Church in terms of teaching but recognize the baptism, true beliefs, and grace-filled actions of other Christian groups).

 

[peter26]

Are you entirely certain that you understand what the Church actually teaches on these subjects?

People seem to have all kinds of weird ideas about what papal infallibility entails.

I’m pretty sure I have a fair understanding of what infallibility is, but it can be difficult when the goalposts seem to change so much.

On the second issue, it seems to me it’s either trivially obvious (Jesus didn’t deliberately found multiple competing churches) or true but practically not that big a deal (since we hold that we are the most direct deescendant of that original Church in terms of teaching but recognize the baptism, true beliefs, and grace-filled actions of other Christian groups).

I believe that all Christian groups that adhere to a few basic principles (e.g. the Trinity, the crucifixion and resurrection) are churches and may therefore potentially have valid sacraments. The unfortunate attitude of denigrating other Christian communities by denying them the label of “church”, questioning their sacraments and the validity of their priests creates a lot of unnecessary animosity which is harmful to any sense of mutual cooperation. There are many different ways to practice the Christian faith and although I won’t say they are all equally valid, most of them have some merit.

 

[Ernie07]

Hello,

Sorry to jump into this thread so late, but I was on vacation! Lots of interesting topics on this thread among them, excommunication, heresy and its different forms, public vs private dissent, cafeteria Catholics, etc. I look at this from the standpoint that not all heretics are excommunicated while all who are excommunicated are heretics. Others on this post have discussed why this is the case as excommunications involves a formal process whereby a person is found guilty of a very grave offense many times of a public nature. Many heretics are so in private and thus do not go through the excommunication process. But, as St. Thomas stated, “The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church, the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval.”

Considering the words of St. Thomas any person that denies a single dogma of the Catholic Church is a heretic. That’s just a fact. I’m not passing judgment on one’s culpability or sinfulness or anything else. Simply stated if a person denies even 1 dogma of the Catholic Church they are a heretic. Thus, a “cafeteria Catholic” is the very definition of a heretic. And to me, that is the biggest issue within the Catholic Church today. I would venture to guess that most Catholics find fault in at least 1 dogma of the Church. And we wonder why the Catholic Church is losing members. How can you have passion for something that you don’t fervently 100% believe in? But, rather than addressing this issue Church leaders try to “expand the tent” with ecumenicalism and Protestant based evangelization and teaching which is the exact opposite thing to do…but I digress…

And doubts are different from unbelief. Every believer has doubts at some point (my personal opinion is that the stronger your belief the more the devil will attack you with doubt), but to not believe is something entirely different. Doubting means you’re not sure; Disbelief means you have made a decision against. Big difference. Doubters are still believers while disbelievers are heretics. In the early Church heretics were called out much more directly, but now we must be careful not to offend…

Either you believe 100% that Jesus kept His promise and built His Church and protected it and that that Church is the Catholic Church or you don’t. Very similar to believing 100% that Jesus is your Lord, God, and Savior or you don’t. If you are less than 100% in either area my advice would be to pray, but to also get educated.

Read the Bible, read Church history, read the encyclicals of the Church councils, read the tracts created by Catholic Answers, talk to knowledgeable Catholics…have the attitude that the dogmas of the Church are truth and you just need the education to believe it yourself. Just because I don’t believe that water is wet doesn’t mean it’s not true. Just because a person doesn’t believe in a certain dogma doesn’t mean it’s not true. Dive into the material that’s out there, engage in discussion, pray hard for belief (which is a gift from God), and embrace the truths of the Catholic Church 100%!!

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

I believe that all Christian groups that adhere to a few basic principles (e.g. the Trinity, the crucifixion and resurrection) are churches and may therefore potentially have valid sacraments. The unfortunate attitude of denigrating other Christian communities by denying them the label of “church”, questioning their sacraments and the validity of their priests creates a lot of unnecessary animosity which is harmful to any sense of mutual cooperation. There are many different ways to practice the Christian faith and although I won’t say they are all equally valid, most of them have some merit.

Hi Peter,

I think it comes down to a simple word: truth. How important is that to you? Jesus said He would build His Church and protect it. Why wouldn’t anyone who calls themselves a Christian want to be a part of that Church? The Catholic Church is that Church and all others are not. I’m not denigrating as I’m just pointing out a fact. This thread isn’t about defending the faith so I won’t go into details, but we as Catholics have to stop feeling like we’re “denigrating” when all we’re doing is professing the truth.

I wouldn’t let you speak an untruth about my wife or children without a very assertive response as I’m sure you would do as well. And yet, when we hear a falsehood about Jesus’ Church we’re supposed to be accommodating and make sure we’re not hurting the feelings of those that speak untruths about Jesus’ Church.

There are many things we can agree on with Protestants like the trinity, saved by grace, Jesus as our Lord, God, and Savior, etc. but we also can’t turn a blind eye to the many disagreements. It is not my fault that their man-made belief system denies the authority of the Church, the Eucharist, the pope, Mary ever-virgin, Purgatory, etc. Rather, it’s our job as Catholics to hold firm in our beliefs and respectfully preach the truth to those that don’t believe. Being accommodating is just PC for being a wimp…sorry if that offends!!

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

Okay, I am slowly learning that one must be very precise in posting on these forums.

I agree with the provision that one may not dissent from infallible dogmas. That wasn’t the jist of my comments. One may dissent (use the term disagree) with non infallible dogmas. The teaching on the use of artificial birth control is not infallible as is Mary was ever Virgin. Things like indulgences, relics, private revelation, Marian apparitions, teaching on the nature of sin, those are not infallible in the same sense that Jesus is present in body and mind, soul and divinity in the Eucharist, or Jesus is consubstantial with the Father. My point is, my dissent is mine only, it becomes extremely serious if preach it to others, but I have the free will and the right to follow my conscience privately, when it comes to non-infallible dogmas.

A very fine priest once said in a retreat seminar that what we as Catholics must believe and not dissent from is contained in the Creed said at Mass. I may not dissent from the dogma that Mary is the Mother of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, but I may privately dissent from the position that Mary showed the children at Fatima a vision of hell and it is a big pit of fire and brimstone. Marian apparitions are not dogma of the RCC. Just one example.

Shalom

Hi joeybaggz,

I may be misunderstanding a certain piece of your post, but just to be clear Mary as ever-virgin is a dogma of the Church. And there are many dogmas that aren’t contained in the Creed so I’d be very careful with how you interpret what that priest told you (for instance the Eucharist isn’t mentioned in the Creed).

I get where you’re coming from though regarding beliefs that are not dogmatic in nature, but I’d just be careful in that many Catholics likely don’t even know what a Catholic dogma is yet alone if they’re breaking it.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

Okay thanks for that. The main things I have an issue with are

1. The infallibility of the Pope
2. The notion that there is only one church which received a mandate from Christ.

These are not regarded as infallible dogmas?

Hi Peter,

There are many excellent writings that will provide you with the scriptural passages that corroborate the beliefs in a one true Church so I want to provide you a version that I came up with in trying to answer this question for myself…and it involves some basic rationale thinking…

Step 1: Jesus said He would build His Church and protect it (MT 16:18)…[That’s the Church I want to be a part of so who/where is that Church today?]

Step 2: Distinguish between today’s Church and that of the first 800 years…[Today, there are multiple Christian denominations all claiming that they are “that Church” and teach the truth. Therefore, there are multiple versions of the truth. But, in the first 800 years there was just one single universal Christian Church. No other groups even claimed to be “that Church” that Jesus built.]

Step 3: Since there was just one Church in the first 800 years either that Church taught the truth or Jesus failed to keep His promise to protect His Church…[Since we know that Jesus can’t fail we then know that this single Christian Church MUST have taught the truth]…[so what did they believe?]

Step 4: The Church of the first 800 years believed in the Eucharist, infant baptism, Mary as Mother of God and ever-virgin, a 73 book Bible, praying for the dead, and no salvation outside the Church amongst other beliefs…[We know this through the encyclicals as written as a result of each Church Council. In the first 800 years there were 7 such ecumenical councils and the beliefs of the Church are documented for all to see]

Step 5: The beliefs of the early Church, which we know taught the truth, are the beliefs of today’s Catholic Church. Hence, we know the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus built as it is the only one that has faithfully preserved the beliefs of Jesus’ early Church. [All other Christian belief systems have strayed from the early Church beliefs in some way causing them to be fraudulent]

When I was researching which church I should attend and belong to I used the above rationale. It is because of this rationale that I am a devout Catholic today. If Jesus built His Church and said He would protect it from error then what it teaches is good enough for me. Who am I to question? I hope this helps you as it helped me.

As for infallibility it falls from the rationale above. The only way we can believe that what the Church teaches is free from error is to believe that error is not possible…hence infallibility. However, all it means is that when the Church makes a formal decree (either directly by the pope sitting in the chair of Peter or through a valid Church Council ratified by the pope) we can be assured that it is the truth. Also, it has a very limiting effect in the sense that once a dogma has been declared no other future pope can change it. Once something is declared a truth (or a falsehood) it is settled forever. I hope this helps as well.

-Ernie-