Is Rejecting Papal Infallibility a Mortal Sin?

[jinc1019]

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

Do you have some source for this? Because the CCC does not make it clear whether rejecting dogma is a mortal sin.

 

[aemcpa]

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

It’s not “out there”, because mortal sin depends on the interior disposition of the individual. Heresy is objectively grave matter, but the other conditions for mortal sin are personal in nature - sufficient reflection/full knowledge of the gravity of the sin, and full and free consent of the will to the sin. Nobody else can ultimately tell you whether you meet those conditions, but a trained spiritual director/confessor can ask the right questions, give you his expert guidance, and help you come to a determination as to whether you meet them.

 

[jinc1019]

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.

Again, where is your source for this information? You are saying that disbelieving the teachings of the Catholic Church makes me a heretic, which in turn means I am committing a mortal sin. I can see the heretic part (I don’t agree with it) but where are you getting the idea that this is a mortal sin? I don’t see that anywhere? Perhaps you have a source?

I appreciate addressing the question though!

 

[jinc1019]

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

Hi Steve, I am not sure you are aware of this, but the question is about PRIVATE belief, not public pronouncements against the teachings of infallibility. Further, your position is absolutely untenable, because virtually all Catholics at one point or another have questioned the infallibility of the Pope either directly or indirectly…By your standards, those Catholics would all be going to hell. That doesn’t make sense at all.

 

[jinc1019]

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.

Again, where are you getting this formulation that rejecting dogma equals a mortal sin? From what Church source? I am not saying you are wrong, but no one has showed me a single reason for believing it.

And again, I have spoken to two deacons about it and received conflicting responses!

 

[jinc1019]

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.

I am aware yes that a person who rejects papal infallibility is considered to be excommunicated. I would like to point out, however, that it being public doesn’t appear to be relevant. Why? If you read the pronouncement made at the First Vatican Council regarding papal infallibility, it reads that anyone who disagrees with this teaching should be an “anathema,” or excommunicated. This isn’t what I am asking. I am asking if it is a mortal sin…there is a huge difference.

 

[aemcpa]

Again, where is your source for this information? You are saying that disbelieving the teachings of the Catholic Church makes me a heretic, which in turn means I am committing a mortal sin. I can see the heretic part (I don’t agree with it) but where are you getting the idea that this is a mortal sin? I don’t see that anywhere? Perhaps you have a source?

I appreciate addressing the question though!

The Code of Canon Law provides for excommunication for heresy, as I quoted above (canon 1364).

 

[jinc1019]

It’s not “out there”, because mortal sin depends on the interior disposition of the individual. Heresy is objectively grave matter, but the other conditions for mortal sin are personal in nature - sufficient reflection/full knowledge of the gravity of the sin, and full and free consent of the will to the sin. Nobody else can ultimately tell you whether you meet those conditions, but a trained spiritual director/confessor can ask the right questions, give you his expert guidance, and help you come to a determination as to whether you meet them.

You are missing the point again. I understand the qualifications for what constitutes a mortal sin generally as described in the CCC. However, the CCC does not, at least in that section, explain that disbelieving in papal infallibility is a sin at all. The First Vatican Council does not make this statement either. Whether something is a sin, generally or not, is not determined internally at all…but rather is determined by the Church.

This is why the Church should have a specific teaching on whether having this belief is a sin or not.

 

[aemcpa]

I am aware yes that a person who rejects papal infallibility is considered to be excommunicated. I would like to point out, however, that it being public doesn’t appear to be relevant. Why? If you read the pronouncement made at the First Vatican Council regarding papal infallibility, it reads that anyone who disagrees with this teaching should be an “anathema,” or excommunicated. This isn’t what I am asking. I am asking if it is a mortal sin…there is a huge difference.

You think one can be excommunicated for a venial sin?

 

[jinc1019]

The Code of Canon Law provides for excommunication for heresy, as I quoted above (canon 1364).

Again, that doesn’t answer the question. The question is…is it a mortal sin? If it is…where is there an official Catholic proclamation that either:

1. Disbelieving in papal infallibility is a grave sin.

or

1. That rejecting any and all Church dogma is a grave sin.

 

[jinc1019]

You think one can be excommunicated for a venial sin?

I have yet to see proof that you need to commit a sin at all to be excommunicated!

 

[aemcpa]

I have yet to see proof that you need to commit a sin at all to be excommunicated!

Now you’re just being obtuse.

 

[jinc1019]

Now you’re just being obtuse.

If you are right…provide the source please. That’s all I am asking.

 

[aemcpa]

If you are right…provide the source please. That’s all I am asking.

“Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.” CCC #1463

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Again, where are you getting this formulation that rejecting dogma equals a mortal sin? From what Church source? I am not saying you are wrong, but no one has showed me a single reason for believing it.

And again, I have spoken to two deacons about it and received conflicting responses!

From the Catechism, pulled from here:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

Heresy results in excommunication, therefore we can logically conclude that, yes, it is a mortal sin, since reconciliation is required in order to partake of the Eucharist again.

Taken from here:

When it comes to Catholics who are formally guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism, the Church applies the penalty of excommunication. The 1983 Code of Canon Law, repeating the sanctions of the earlier 1917 Code, states,

As for speaking to deacons, why aren’t you speaking to priests? Deacons are all well and good, and likely very devout men, but they are not priests, and likely do not have the same level of training in dealing with issues such as these. Seek out a priest to discuss these matters with. Also, read the second link I sent you, it may help you understand why it’s a mortal sin.

Other are right though, it appears you are being willful in your decision to ignore a blatant and obvious truth. Heresy is a big deal, and always has been, why would you suddenly think that it’s not?

 

[anruari]

HI

First I’d like to say this: There has been a lot of uncharitable treatment of the O.P. on this thread. Shame on you all.
I know from personal experience what it’s like to struggle with issues like this. There’s a big difference between Obstinate refusal to accept Revealed Truth, and an misinformed conscience and miss-education leading to invincible ignorance in these matters.
It is clear from the fact that the O.P. is coming back time and again to ask this and related questions that he wants to understand the Truth. This therefore must not be treated by us as obstinate refusal.

now to the O.P.
Here’s a link to the Catechism’s section on Mortal Sin

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

Now for the OP’s question: Is rejection of a defined Dogma of the Church a Mortal Sin, one must answer the 3 issues seperately

1. is it Grave Matter: (see next post)
2. Is there full knowledge
3. is there full and deliberate consent.

In the OP’s case we can clearly state the answer to 1) and 2) are Yes.
the answer to No. 3 is not certain to us. I know what it’s like to struggle with and be unable to understand a church dogma. It took me decades to resolve these issues. I never gave full and deliberate consent to holding a heretical belief. I was trapped in bad logic and misunderstanding which took a lot of help to unravel.
I know other people in the same situation.

Those who have advised the O.P. to seek advice from a priest are objectively correct. A priest must be consulted in Confession for these issues. If you are trully trying to understand the Truth, then any sin is significantly lessened by the state of condition no. 3). Only your Confessor, within the sacrament of confession is competent to advise you on your personal state of culpability.
It may be necessary for your to seek confession with your bishop or a priest with special training in these matters to help you to understand and repent of your difficulties.

 

[jinc1019]

“Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.” CCC #1463

That doesn’t show anything! Once again, is disbelieving in papal infallibility a sin? From what I have seen, it is not…it does lead to excommunication though.

 

[anruari]

Is Heresy “Grave Matter”

From the CCC:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the will-full refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

This comes from here:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm

It is in the section defining sins against the First Commandment.
It is clear from the context that this (heresy) is objectively “Grave Matter”. BUt again the definition is that it is “Obstinate refusal to believe” or “Obstinate doubt” which constitutes “Grave Matter”

As the Dogma of Papal Infallibility is defined within the bounds of the Infallible Act of the Ordinary Magisterium, it is itself infallibly defined.
The dogma clearly states that it is to be held to be true by all the faithful.

Modern Cannon Law removed the concept of “anethema” but retains automatic Latae Sentiae excommunications.

The OP’s interior state of mind on this matter determines the gravity of his situation:
Is is failure to accept this Dogmatically defined articel one of the following:
“Obstinate denial of some Truth”
done with “full Consent of the will”

and lastly is the O.P. rejecting the actual doctrine of Papal infalibility, or some straw-man missconception of what that doctrine actually contains?

One of the most common issues I find when discussing catholic teachings, is that people don’t actually understand the doctrines they are saying they reject. in the case of Purgatory I have sat down with Protestant friends and described my understanding of Purgratory, as part of (or linked to) the Judgment Process where our attachemnts to the World, and to Sin, and everything that is not Pure and Of God, is stripped away so we can enter Heaven to have them wholeheartedly agree throughout, untill I mention the word “Purgatory” when they suddenly reject the whole concept (after previously accepting every part of the actual teaching of the church) They are rejecting the word, not the teaching - due to a pre-judged belief of what the teaching of purgatory actually is.

Similarly in the case of Infallibility: I would ask the O.P. to set out what he believes this doctrine actually is. What does it teach? How broad or narrow is it?

The true teaching of the Church sets out a very narrow definition of Papal Infaliblity. It must be explicitly invoked in specific circumstances.

It has a strong correlation in American legal structure:
The Judges have the power to “Bind and Loose” they are the judge of earthly behaviour.
They have the legal power to define how the laws and the constitution are to be interpreted.

At each stage, if a person feels a judge has made an error he can appeal to a higher court - up to and including the “Supreme Court of the United States”.
Beyond this court there is no appeal. The judgement of this court defines the interpretation of Law in a way which is “Infallible”. They cannot be “Wrong” - but that only applies when they are sitting in session, and passing judgemnt. They must also set out the limitations of their ruling. what it does and does not apply to beyond the specific case they are judging.

Similarly the whole of the Magisterium acting together (e.g. in a council) or the Pope is the ultimate arbiter of matters of Faith or Morals.

When either defines something as “Difinitive, and to be held to be true by all the faithfull”, or in similar words, when acting in that capacity as bishops acting together, or the Pope acting as Pope (Bishop of Rome, and primate of the Whole Church) then the Holy Spirit will protect them from doing so in error and thereby defining that which is false to be true or vice-versa.

This does not apply to whole documents of the councils or to all the proceedings of the councils. Similarly it does not apply to Pastoral letters, personal letters, general asudiences, books written, interviews made by or any other communications with the Pope, or individual parts of the Magisterium

It applies to Specifically defined parts of specifically identified documents. Normally to individual statements in the conclusion of larger texts.

The Pope has only explicitly invoked his papal infallibility a tiny number of times over the centuries. Very few of our teachings are defined dogmatically. Even fewer of these were thus defined by the pope alone acting outside of an Ecumenical Council (The Ordinary Magisterium)

 

[jinc1019]

This is what I have found so far using official Catholic sources…It may be helpful should someone else stumble upon this thread in the future:

The issue of papal infallibility was addressed by the First Vatican Council, resulting in this pronouncement: papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#SESSION

If you go to the last section of the page, you will see papal infallibility addressed. At the very end of papal infallibility being addressed by the pope, the following is stated:
“So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.”-Session 4, 1870.

The current Code of Canon Law does not address what an “anathema” is. But, the 1917 version of the Code of Canon Law did explain that an “anathema” was a term synonomous with excommunication:

Canon 2257 §1. Excommunication is a censure by which one is excluded from the communion of the faithful, with the effects which are enumerated in the following canons, which are inseverable.
§2. It is also called anathema, chiefly if it is imposed with the solemnities described in the Roman Pontifical.

But, to be excommunicated, must I be declared to be excommunicated by some kind of judicial council? No. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]

Therefore, I am, simply by believing what I do, excommunicated from the Church officially.

The next question would be regarding mortal sins. From what I can gather, one can be excommunicated without committing a mortal sin. I have yet to find out whether believing papal infallibility to be untrue is a mortal sin, or a sin at all.

 

[jinc1019]

From the Catechism, pulled from here:

Heresy results in excommunication, therefore we can logically conclude that, yes, it is a mortal sin, since reconciliation is required in order to partake of the Eucharist again.

Taken from here:

As for speaking to deacons, why aren’t you speaking to priests? Deacons are all well and good, and likely very devout men, but they are not priests, and likely do not have the same level of training in dealing with issues such as these. Seek out a priest to discuss these matters with. Also, read the second link I sent you, it may help you understand why it’s a mortal sin.

Other are right though, it appears you are being willful in your decision to ignore a blatant and obvious truth. Heresy is a big deal, and always has been, why would you suddenly think that it’s not?

I am sorry but no. Being excommunicated is not the same thing as committing a mortal sin. The Canon Law is very clear on that. For instance, if you strike a priest, you can be excommunicated, even though you have not committed a mortal sin.