Is Rejecting Papal Infallibility a Mortal Sin?

[underacloud]

I understand we addressed the issue…but again, I want to know if it is a mortal sin or not. It’s a simple question, and quite frankly, I don’t need to be ridiculed for asking it.

I certainly don’t mean to ridicule. I am very sorry if I have given that impression.

In the previous thread we did discuss the difference between honest/involuntary doubt and obstinate doubt. I think that being open to the possibility that the Church is right in such matters is sufficient to have doubts but remain in good standing.

But the question as to whether your doubt is considered mortal sin is really a pastoral one for your priest/confessor. Discuss this with him. The priest may not have the infallibility to teach as such, but he does have God given authority to loose or bind sins. If a priest through confession determines your doubt is not mortal sin, you can trust his judgement.

 

[guanophore]

I’m pretty sure we’ve been down this road with you before…

Ah, yes, here it is:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=732992

There was plenty of healthy debate in that thread for you to review. There’s nothing anyone could really add to that. But I suggest you make an appointment to discuss this with your priest, and he can advise you regarding your capacity to properly receive the Eucharist.

Well I’ll be! This has been going round and round for a long time!

 

[minion]

If I, knowing the Church’s teaching on papal infallibility, reject papal infallibility privately because I believe it is not true for specific historical reasons, am I committing a mortal sin?

granted, judging from your post number, you probably know more about the Catholic faith than I do, but a post from forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=529910:

Here is the entry on “Heresy” from Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. :
…
In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy;
previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church;
external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate;
outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God;;
and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.

Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith.
Hope this answers most of your questions.

I personally wouldn’t claim any certainty regarding matters of faith, but would try to work it out, even until death. Even St. Therese of Lisieux had bouts of disbelief.

 

[7armyrugrats]

I already told him in the other thread to go to a priest in the confessional. If it is a sin, whether mortal or venial, that is where he would end up needing to go anyway. And if the priest gave him a bad answer, the judgment is on the priest and not him. He would have no worries after that either way. But honestly it is his decision about what he should and needs to do. I guess the fact that he’s struggling so much means he us doubting himself. Maybe he is rethinking the whole infallibility thing! If he isn’t completely rejecting it, then there is no problem and he can remain in the Church and receive the Eucharist and all is well! Or we can keep going around and around with this and still solve NADA

 

[pablope]

I already told him in the other thread to go to a priest in the confessional. If it is a sin, whether mortal or venial, that is where he would end up needing to go anyway. And if the priest gave him a bad answer, the judgment is on the priest and not him. He would have no worries after that either way. But honestly it is his decision about what he should and needs to do. I guess the fact that he’s struggling so much means he us doubting himself. Maybe he is rethinking the whole infallibility thing! If he isn’t completely rejecting it, then there is no problem and he can remain in the Church and receive the Eucharist and all is well! Or we can keep going around and around with this and still solve NADA

That is right…which is why I advised to go to a priest.

But look at his responses…from one post:

The priest is, himself, not protected with infallibility or authority the way the Church as a whole is…so why wouldn’t I want an answer from the infallible Church over a fallible priest?

 

[7armyrugrats]

That is right…which is why I advised to go to a priest.

But look at his responses…from one post:

The priest is, himself, not protected with infallibility or authority the way the Church as a whole is…so why wouldn’t I want an answer from the infallible Church over a fallible priest?

But…he doesn’t believe in infallibility, so go figure.

How come NOW the Church is infallible so it’s better than the fallible priest? Maybe I’m just stupid but I can’t see how this is logically thought out. Maybe he really believes more than he wants to admit to himself

 

[guanophore]

That thread didn’t address this question at all. So no, we didn’t go over this. I don’t believe you will find an answer in that thread about whether this is a mortal sin or not…and I never asked in that thread if it was.

There is a lot of information available about mortal sin on CAF and elsewhere. You are claiming in this thread that you have obstinate post-baptismal denial of more than one truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith.

However, since it does not appear to be important to you to embrace the teachings of the Catholic faith, I am wondering why it would matter to you if this was a mortal sin?

I am not asking if I should receive communion. I know I shouldn’t. I am asking is it a mortal sin?

Well now this is very interesting, because just a few hours ago you didn’t seem to know…

Perhaps you are very confused, or have memory problems, or perhaps you are a troll?

That has nothing to do with the question.

On the contrary, it has EVERYTHING to do with the question, and your other issues. The priest or spiritual director is the one to help you discern if your actions have met the criteria for a mortal sin. Going to the priest and being obedient also gets at the heart of your issues, because they seem to be centered around a rejection of God’s authority over you. In submitting to the spiritual direction of the priest, you would have to relinquish yourself as your own authority, and accept the one that God has ordained.

As you know, a priest can instruct you in a matter and be wrong. Just because he is a priest doesn’t mean he is right.

Indeed he can, but if you submit to his instruction, and receive absolution, then God will honor your obedience, even if he is wrong. And obedience to that which you cannot bring yourself to believe is actually at the heart of the issue. It is a matter of faith, and you seem to be unable to step forward in it.

No, a** priest doesn’t get to decide what is and what is not a mortal sin.** He can give his informed opinion, but that’s all. If a priest tells me using condoms is not a mortal sin, you would tell me the priest is wrong…and by the way, many priests say this.

It is curious that you would say this. It does, however, seem to reinforce the possibility that you are a troll. You have opened a thread asking for the opinions of lay apologists, and are now stating that you reject the ability of the priest to discern whether or not the confessed offense is mortal.

 No, a priest doesn't get to decide what is and what is not a mortal sin. He can give his informed opinion, but that's all. If a priest tells me using condoms is not a mortal sin, you would tell me the priest is wrong...and by the way, many priests say this.

jinc1019;10541782:

The definition of a mortal sin is defined by the teaching authority of the Church…so there must be some declaration by the Church regarding whether this is a mortal sin or not.

This being the case, why did you start the thread?

Where do you think? To the approved teachings of the Church. That is why I am asking the question!

Well, you did get a lot of excellent resources on the previous threads regarding these issues. It appears that you have rejected all of them.

See…you are going in circles. Why would the priest not give you what is not the teaching of the Church? Who would be in better authority…the priest or you?

And he is there to also give you spiritual advice. Is there something wrong with this?

It is not really clear what Jinc wants, but it does not appear to be spiritual advice. Jinc rejects any and all advice offered. There is nothing wrong with spiritual advice if the person wants it, but fore someone who does not, it is not useful.

I understand we addressed the issue…but again, I want to know if it is a mortal sin or not. It’s a simple question, and quite frankly, I don’t need to be ridiculed for asking it.

What is ridiculous jinc, is that you have already discovered the answer to this question, yet you seem to have some trouble accepting it. Perhaps you would like to have your own way, and design your own set of “orthodox” beliefs that you judge by your own standards to be true, and yet, still feel a sense of belonging to the Church founded by Christ. It just doesn’t work that way.

Are you denying the fact that priests do, at times, give improper teachings of the Church?

No, but you are denying that they have been ordained by God to function in this capacity, and that by submitting to them in obedience we cleanse our souls.

The priest is, himself, not protected with infallibility or authority the way the Church as a whole is…so why wouldn’t I want an answer from the infallible Church over a fallible priest?

Of course he is! As we all are. To the extent that we embrace and teach what has been infallibly preserved, we can all benefit from this gift.

Why do you think a priest cannot? Who has the authority to bind and loose…you or him?

It looks like you want to make the decision yourself…you are rationalizing so as not to seek the counsel of those who were ordained to help us in our spiritual journeys…

I think you hit that nail on the head pablope!

 

[Michael_Allen]

Hi Jinc,

Perhaps its a question of attitude. If one, in good conscience, explores the question and comes to the conclusion that Papal infallibility is mistaken then that is one thing. If, on the other hand, one is simply willfully rejecting Church thinking without care then that is another.

As for myself, I trust that what matters is that people trust in Jesus. Doctrine of Papal infallibility is definitely a secondary issue in my mind.

Appreciating others will hold a differeny opinion.

 

[Pilgrim_333]

It’s my understanding that The Vicar of Christ receives his infallibility from The Holy Spirit, this is the pillar of the Magisterium. As such is refuting the doctrine of infallibility flirting with blaspheming The Holy Spirit? I’m curious what others think. As such I would tread carefully in my thoughts and beliefs. It is upon this doctrine that so many others stand. It is a necessity.

BTW, what are your historical examples of infallibility? As a former Protestant I exhausted myself searching for instances of a Pope teaching heresy, I could find none (Believe me I desperately wanted to), in the end I had to let go of my pride and admit that The Church was right and I was wrong.

 

[Michael_Allen]

As such is refuting the doctrine of infallibility flirting with blaspheming The Holy Spirit?

No, I personally don’t think that is what Jesus was teaching in scripture; that seems anachronistic to me. If we read the context of our Lord’s words it has nothing to do with Peter so I think you have to make a very large leap to read support for Petrine infallibility into that passage.

 

[Pilgrim_333]

No, I personally don’t think that is what Jesus was teaching in scripture; that seems anachronistic to me. If we read the context of our Lord’s words it has nothing to do with Peter so I think you have to make a very large leap to read support for Petrine infallibility into that passage.

I tend to agree. It was a question that occured to me while I was pondering the infallibility question, so I threw it out there to see what others thought concerning the idea.

 

[cceerpp]

1. Papal Infallibility is dogma.
2. Rejecting dogma is not just mortal sin but heresy.
   

 

[aemcpa]

I am not asking if I should receive communion. I know I shouldn’t. I am asking is it a mortal sin?

If you’re Catholic, the only thing that would prevent you from receiving Communion is mortal sin. So if you don’t know it’s a mortal sin, why do you know you can’t receive Communion?

As it were, heresy is grave matter, and since you are a manifest heretic, you are objectively in the state of mortal sin. You seem to have full knowledge and sufficient reflection on the matter; whether you have full and free consent of the will to your heresy is not for me to judge.

 

[thenobes]

No, I personally don’t think that is what Jesus was teaching in scripture; that seems anachronistic to me. If we read the context of our Lord’s words it has nothing to do with Peter so I think you have to make a very large leap to read support for Petrine infallibility into that passage.

Michael,

I have to disagree here. It seems rather obvious that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is attributing the work of holiness to evil. (Look at the context of Jesus’s statement). Poisoning the well, as it were.

It is a positive Good that the Church have the ability to preserve the teachings of Our Lord. To assign that Good to other than the Holy Spirit is bordering on that blasphemy.

Wouldn’t this ability include the ability to teach infallibly, else otherwise untruth can creep in?

So to claim infallibilty is somehow an evil or wrong, is countering the work of the Holy Spirit.

peace
steve

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Yes.

The short and succinct answer you are looking for is Yes.

Papal infallibility = Dogma.
Rejection of Dogma = Heresy
Heresy = Mortal Sin

If you accept that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of God, guided by the Holy Spirit for the fulfillment and development of souls on Earth, which was established by Jesus Christ to lead his people, and which contains the fullness of truth about Christ’s teachings and our position and purpose in this life; rejection of this Dogma is a mortal sin. To have the pride to knowingly reject a teaching of the Church, believing yourself to know better than Her, even though she is guided by the Holy spirit and will not lead you astray; is a mortal sin. We are called to have the humility to place the Church above ourselves, that is a basic tenant of Catholicism, and has helped us avoid the same folly as the protestants for the last two-thousand years.

I do not know if you have sinned mortally, because I do not know your heart or mind; however, your question is not have you sinned mortally, but if it is a mortal sin. The answer is Yes.

As others have said, ad nauseum, you should speak to a spiritual adviser. Why can you not accept papal infallibility? If it was good enough for the Church fathers, it’s good enough for me. Is it because you think God is not capable of guiding his Church? That’s the only reason I can think of for rejecting this Dogma. If that’s the case, then you have far deeper issues that need addressed. Seek out an adviser, spend time in front of the blessed sacrament, and ask God for the humility to recognize and submit to His will.

 

[jinc1019]

granted, judging from your post number, you probably know more about the Catholic faith than I do, but a post from forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=529910:

I personally wouldn’t claim any certainty regarding matters of faith, but would try to work it out, even until death. Even St. Therese of Lisieux had bouts of disbelief.

I appreciate the link. I will read through that thread as well.

 

[aemcpa]

Assuming this isn’t an academic exercise and you do, in fact, reject papal infallibility, I would point out for the benefit of your soul that by this posting you made your heresy public, and it is likely that you have incurred an excommunication according to canon 1364:

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

You would have to have the excommunication lifted by your diocesan bishop unless he has delegated that authority to his pastors.

 

[jinc1019]

I already told him in the other thread to go to a priest in the confessional. If it is a sin, whether mortal or venial, that is where he would end up needing to go anyway. And if the priest gave him a bad answer, the judgment is on the priest and not him. He would have no worries after that either way. But honestly it is his decision about what he should and needs to do. I guess the fact that he’s struggling so much means he us doubting himself. Maybe he is rethinking the whole infallibility thing! If he isn’t completely rejecting it, then there is no problem and he can remain in the Church and receive the Eucharist and all is well! Or we can keep going around and around with this and still solve NADA

That’s totally false. It either is a mortal sin or it isn’t a mortal sin, and whether a priest tells me it is or tells me it isn’t, has no bearing on the issue.

Again, this is a simple question and the answer should be out there somewhere.

 

[jinc1019]

But…he doesn’t believe in infallibility, so go figure.

How come NOW the Church is infallible so it’s better than the fallible priest? Maybe I’m just stupid but I can’t see how this is logically thought out. Maybe he really believes more than he wants to admit to himself

I am not sure why you can’t understand the question. Obviously I don’t believe in infallibility. But if I go to a priest and he says, “don’t worry about it.” Then another priest hears about my situation and says it’s a problem, then where am I at? I have already spoken to two deacons about it and both gave conflicting answers. Going to a priest doesn’t solve the issue. Go read the numerous forums on here about priests telling people can they use contraception for an example.

 

[jinc1019]

Hi Jinc,

Perhaps its a question of attitude. If one, in good conscience, explores the question and comes to the conclusion that Papal infallibility is mistaken then that is one thing. If, on the other hand, one is simply willfully rejecting Church thinking without care then that is another.

As for myself, I trust that what matters is that people trust in Jesus. Doctrine of Papal infallibility is definitely a secondary issue in my mind.

Appreciating others will hold a differeny opinion.

Thank you very much for the response…and for actually addressing the question, something no one here wants to do.