J
jinc1019
Guest
Thank you very much for this! I greatly appreciate the information and your civility, which is welcomed. For whatever reason, people are very hostile about this issue.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
Tomster
Guest
jinc1019,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!
Perhaps this may help you to get a better understanding.
First, let’s back up from the word “heresy” for a moment. Let’s put that word on the shelf for the time being, o.k?
Let’s look at the word schism first. Schism is a special sin opposed to charity, a sin by which one refuses to submit himself to Christ and to Christ’s Vicar, and to hold communion with the obedient members of the Church. Schism bespeaks separation of souls, a division, a break. Thus, directly and of itself, schism is opposed to unity and consequently opposed to charity, which is the bond of unity and joins together in spiritual affection, not only this person and that, but all the faithful in the unity of the Spirit. Properly speaking, they are schismatics who knowingly, voluntarily abandon the unity of the Church, which is the head and source of all unity.
Within the Church two things must be borne in mind: the mutual union or “communion” of the members, and the subordination of all the members to one sole Head, Christ Himself, whose place here below is held by the Supreme Pontiff. One may be a schismatic either by refusing to subject himself to the Pope, or by refusing to hold communion with the obedient members of the Church. Such a one imitates the “illumined” dreamer of Colossians, “not holding the Head from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God.” (2:19)
Schism, therefore, is a sin against the society of the Mystical Body. Heresy, unbelief, directly attackes God, the first primary truth and the object of Faith. Schism attacks the unity of the Church. It is, therefore, less grave than heresy. But it is the gravest of sins against one’s neighbor because it injures the entire Church in that which is dear to her.
I hope this sheds some light on your question.
J
jinc1019
Guest
Excellent response. I believe this accurately answers my question. Again, I appreciate your response, your time, and your efforts. It was very helpful.Is Heresy “Grave Matter”
From the CCC:
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)
J
jinc1019
Guest
This also helps very much, thank you. However, are you certain schism is classified as a sin? Is that an official Church teaching or just your understanding of it? You need not supply a citation, I just wanted to clarify.jinc1019,
Perhaps this may help you to get a better understanding.
First, let’s back up from the word “heresy” for a moment. Let’s put that word on the shelf for the time being, o.k?
Let’s look at the word schism first. Schism is a special sin opposed to charity, a sin by which one refuses to submit himself to Christ and to Christ’s Vicar, and to hold communion with the obedient members of the Church. Schism bespeaks separation of souls, a division, a break. Thus, directly and of itself, schism is opposed to unity and consequently opposed to charity, which is the bond of unity and joins together in spiritual affection, not only this person and that, but all the faithful in the unity of the Spirit. Properly speaking, they are schismatics who knowingly, voluntarily abandon the unity of the Church, which is the head and source of all unity.
Within the Church two things must be borne in mind: the mutual union or “communion” of the members, and the subordination of all the members to one sole Head, Christ Himself, whose place here below is held by the Supreme Pontiff. One may be a schismatic either by refusing to subject himself to the Pope, or by refusing to hold communion with the obedient members of the Church. Such a one imitates the “illumined” dreamer of Colossians, “not holding the Head from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God.” (2:19)
Schism, therefore, is a sin against the society of the Mystical Body. Heresy, unbelief, directly attackes God, the first primary truth and the object of Faith. Schism attacks the unity of the Church. It is, therefore, less grave than heresy. But it is the gravest of sins against one’s neighbor because it injures the entire Church in that which is dear to her.
I hope this sheds some light on your question.
T
Tomster
Guest
Schism is a sin and that is Church teaching. I am certain of it, personally.This also helps very much, thank you. However, are you certain schism is classified as a sin? Is that an official Church teaching or just your understanding of it? You need not supply a citation, I just wanted to clarify.
J
jinc1019
Guest
Thank you for the confirmation. Again, I greatly appreciate your time and for addressing the issue directly.Schism is a sin and that is Church teaching. I am certain of it, personally.
T
Tomster
Guest
You are welcome.Thank you for the confirmation. Again, I greatly appreciate your time and for addressing the issue directly.
A
anruari
Guest
I would refer you back to the links from the Catechism I supplied.This also helps very much, thank you. However, are you certain schism is classified as a sin? Is that an official Church teaching or just your understanding of it? You need not supply a citation, I just wanted to clarify.
Schism, is again a a sin against the First Commandment.
The quote in the catechism which I repeated above, was itself a quote from Cannon 751.
see the code of cannon Law here:
I know sources are very important in a search like yours.
Remember, everything the church teaches can be traced back to divine revelation. Her authority does come from Jesus Himself.
If you search with an honest and open heart, and let yourself be open to the teachings of His Church, The Holy Spirit will lead you to the Truth. - That doesn’t mean the Journey will be instant or painless. - Offer up that pain to the Lord. it is part of your Purgation. He will use it to reach out to others just as he is with me.
A
ALLGIRLS
Guest
It would make you strictly speaking a heretic. I’m not sure if that’s per se a mortal sin (that would mean that anyone who ever left the Catholic Church, even if they became very strong, God loving Protestants, in mortal sin as well, so I’m not sure). As for receiving the Eucharist, from what I understand, that’s a public acknowledgement that you agree with everything the Church teaches (which is why Protestants can’t receive in Catholic Churches), so if you reject the doctrine of infallibility, you’d essentially be lying everytime you receive.
In Christ,
Ellen
In Christ,
Ellen
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Very well, I will set aside that specific point, however: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.
Is being excommunicated not enough of a wake-up call for you? Is being unable to partake of God’s greatest gift to us not reason enough to put aside your own petty difficulties?
You still haven’t explained -why- you cannot accept Papal infallibility, or why you inexplicably think it is somehow beyond God to ensure the stability of His church in such a manner.
J
jinc1019
Guest
According to Canon Law and the First Vatican Council, disbelief in papal infallibility warrants automatic excommunication and is considered a mortal sin if the three conditions regarding mortal sins are met. Thus, according to Catholic teaching, if you reject papal infallibility knowing the teaching of the Church but disbelieving it to be true, you are going to hell unless you confess your sin.It would make you strictly speaking a heretic. I’m not sure if that’s per se a mortal sin (that would mean that anyone who ever left the Catholic Church, even if they became very strong, God loving Protestants, in mortal sin as well, so I’m not sure). As for receiving the Eucharist, from what I understand, that’s a public acknowledgement that you agree with everything the Church teaches (which is why Protestants can’t receive in Catholic Churches), so if you reject the doctrine of infallibility, you’d essentially be lying everytime you receive.
In Christ,
Ellen
I don’t believe any of this of course, but that is the Catholic teaching.
J
jinc1019
Guest
I have explained why I do not accept papal infallibility MANY times on these forums so there is no need to go over it again. In short, I believe history has proven it is false, I don’t believe it was an original teaching of the apostles (just like the Orthodox Christians do not), and I believe logic makes it impossible based on what scripture says.Very well, I will set aside that specific point, however:
Is being excommunicated not enough of a wake-up call for you? Is being unable to partake of God’s greatest gift to us not reason enough to put aside your own petty difficulties?
You still haven’t explained -why- you cannot accept Papal infallibility, or why you inexplicably think it is somehow beyond God to ensure the stability of His church in such a manner.
T
Tomster
Guest
ALLGIRLS,It would make you strictly speaking a heretic. I’m not sure if that’s per se a mortal sin (that would mean that anyone who ever left the Catholic Church, even if they became very strong, God loving Protestants, in mortal sin as well, so I’m not sure). As for receiving the Eucharist, from what I understand, that’s a public acknowledgement that you agree with everything the Church teaches (which is why Protestants can’t receive in Catholic Churches), so if you reject the doctrine of infallibility, you’d essentially be lying everytime you receive.
In Christ,
Ellen
Just some information.
The usual path starts off with an individual going into schism and then heresy is just a hop, skip and a jump from that.
Oh yes, and there are two type of heresy, material and formal. Heresy is the cause of dogmatic development in the Church.
T
Tomster
Guest
jinc1019,I have explained why I do not accept papal infallibility MANY times on these forums so there is no need to go over it again. In short, I believe history has proven it is false, I don’t believe it was an original teaching of the apostles (just like the Orthodox Christians do not), and I believe logic makes it impossible based on what scripture says.
I am interested to know where history has proven it false.
J
jinc1019
Guest
If you read the Orthodox position on this, you will essentially be reading my own view. I am sure you can find something better from them that will explain it than whatever I write.jinc1019,
I am interested to know where history has proven it false.
But basically, it’s quite simple. If papal infallibility is correct, nothing the Pope pronounces to be infallibly true can be false. This teaching is based on 2 things…One is tradition. The other is Mathew 16, where Peter is promised the keys to the kingdom and that the gates of hell won’t prevail against the Church.
In Matthew 18, the other apostles are promised infallible protection as well when two are three are together. Those apostles then went off into the world and established churches, which have been inherited by other bishops. Yet, the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church have differences on so-called infallible doctrines. This disproves infallibility because if infallibility were true, the Pope and the Orthodox bishops who have inherited offices protected by the Holy Spirit would be unable to disagree with one another on an issue declared to be infallible. Yet, they do.
Now, to get around this issue, the Catholic Church teaches that the other apostles in Matthew 18 who are promised infallible protection are only promised the protection when in communion with Peter, but there is absolutely no scriptural evidence at all that this is true, nor is there any mention of this view in the Bible or the early Church.
Catholics, upon hearing this, would say, “Well, we don’t need this point (the idea that bishops are only protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit when in communion with Peter’s seat) to be proved by scripture because we have tradition.” But, the Orthodox Church also has a tradition present that is just as old and they say papal infallibility is not true.
So, logically, the only way papal infallibility could be true is if the promises made to the other apostles in Matthew 18 are only valid when those offices (the bishops) are in communion with the chair of Peter. This, however, is not supported by any evidence at all from the early Church fathers or from Orthodox tradition. Only the Roman tradition claims to support this, and they obviously have something to gain from it.
Additionally, it is a fact that Peter established MULTIPLE episcopal offices, not just the one in Rome. So logically, why would Rome be the only “Seat of Peter?”
There is a lot more detailed reasons behind those points…but that is the primary set of arguments.
M
Michael_Allen
Guest
Hi Steve,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
But the context of the scripture is when the teachers of the law described Jesus, after working miracles, as being possessed by Beelzebul. To read into that that questioning of the 19th century Catholic dogma of Papal infallibility (which is clearly not something held in the common ancestry of the Catholic, Coptic and Orthodox churches), I believe, is to extrapolate hugely from the context of the scripture where Jesus’s witnessed works of healing are twisted, by the teachers of the law (who should know better), into saying that our Lord himself must be possessed by Beelzebul.
Accepting that others may indeed see this passage as a defense of Papal Infallibility and the eternal and unforgivable damnation of those who challenge it. I just don’t see it in the text myself - I think we must be wary of speculative interpretations of scripture (yes, they may be interesting to explore as we mull over scripture, but I think we must always recognize when we are speculating and extrapolating away from the immediate context of the scripture).
T
Tomster
Guest
jinc1019,If you read the Orthodox position on this, you will essentially be reading my own view. I am sure you can find something better from them that will explain it than whatever I write.
But basically, it’s quite simple. If papal infallibility is correct, nothing the Pope pronounces to be infallibly true can be false. This teaching is based on 2 things…One is tradition. The other is Mathew 16, where Peter is promised the keys to the kingdom and that the gates of hell won’t prevail against the Church.
In Matthew 18, the other apostles are promised infallible protection as well when two are three are together. Those apostles then went off into the world and established churches, which have been inherited by other bishops. Yet, the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church have differences on so-called infallible doctrines. This disproves infallibility because if infallibility were true, the Pope and the Orthodox bishops who have inherited offices protected by the Holy Spirit would be unable to disagree with one another on an issue declared to be infallible. Yet, they do.
Now, to get around this issue, the Catholic Church teaches that the other apostles in Matthew 18 who are promised infallible protection are only promised the protection when in communion with Peter, but there is absolutely no scriptural evidence at all that this is true, nor is there any mention of this view in the Bible or the early Church.
Catholics, upon hearing this, would say, “Well, we don’t need this point (the idea that bishops are only protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit when in communion with Peter’s seat) to be proved by scripture because we have tradition.” But, the Orthodox Church also has a tradition present that is just as old and they say papal infallibility is not true.
So, logically, the only way papal infallibility could be true is if the promises made to the other apostles in Matthew 18 are only valid when those offices (the bishops) are in communion with the chair of Peter. This, however, is not supported by any evidence at all from the early Church fathers or from Orthodox tradition. Only the Roman tradition claims to support this, and they obviously have something to gain from it.
Additionally, it is a fact that Peter established MULTIPLE episcopal offices, not just the one in Rome. So logically, why would Rome be the only “Seat of Peter?”
There is a lot more detailed reasons behind those points…but that is the primary set of arguments.
Consider this:
If it could be shown that Peter himself was oblivious of having the special primacy the Catholic Church claims he had, it would be fair to say that the Catholc Church’s claims for the papacy are seriously jeopardized. Worse yet, if the rest of the early Church was equally oblivious to that claim and to the notion that Peter’s successors, the bishops of Rome, enjoyed a primacy of authority among bishops, the Catholic Church would be a house of cards waiting to fall.
Happily, Christ chose far more durable materials to build His house, the Church:
“Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and then rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.” Matthew 7:24-25
T
Tomster
Guest
jinc1019,If you read the Orthodox position on this, you will essentially be reading my own view. I am sure you can find something better from them that will explain it than whatever I write.
But basically, it’s quite simple. If papal infallibility is correct, nothing the Pope pronounces to be infallibly true can be false. This teaching is based on 2 things…One is tradition. The other is Mathew 16, where Peter is promised the keys to the kingdom and that the gates of hell won’t prevail against the Church.
In Matthew 18, the other apostles are promised infallible protection as well when two are three are together. Those apostles then went off into the world and established churches, which have been inherited by other bishops. Yet, the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church have differences on so-called infallible doctrines. This disproves infallibility because if infallibility were true, the Pope and the Orthodox bishops who have inherited offices protected by the Holy Spirit would be unable to disagree with one another on an issue declared to be infallible. Yet, they do.
Now, to get around this issue, the Catholic Church teaches that the other apostles in Matthew 18 who are promised infallible protection are only promised the protection when in communion with Peter, but there is absolutely no scriptural evidence at all that this is true, nor is there any mention of this view in the Bible or the early Church.
Catholics, upon hearing this, would say, “Well, we don’t need this point (the idea that bishops are only protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit when in communion with Peter’s seat) to be proved by scripture because we have tradition.” But, the Orthodox Church also has a tradition present that is just as old and they say papal infallibility is not true.
So, logically, the only way papal infallibility could be true is if the promises made to the other apostles in Matthew 18 are only valid when those offices (the bishops) are in communion with the chair of Peter. This, however, is not supported by any evidence at all from the early Church fathers or from Orthodox tradition. Only the Roman tradition claims to support this, and they obviously have something to gain from it.
Additionally, it is a fact that Peter established MULTIPLE episcopal offices, not just the one in Rome. So logically, why would Rome be the only “Seat of Peter?”
There is a lot more detailed reasons behind those points…but that is the primary set of arguments.
Additionally, all other Christian bodies, in so far as they have maintained a positive belief’ have attached to themselves to a fixed and rigid principle. For instance, in Lutheranism and Calvinism it is the letter of the Bible. In the Orthodox churches of the East it is the Bible and “passive” tradition, that is to say, the traditon of the ancient Fathers and most ancient Councils. Therefore these churches are in danger of treating revelation as so much dead capital, as a store of gold which must passed on to future generations in a merely external fashion, and of overlooking the vital energies that lie in the revelation and work for the further developement of its germinal content. To this danger of petrification and ossification the Orthodox Church has succumbed.
A
anruari
Guest
No No NO!According to Canon Law and the First Vatican Council, disbelief in papal infallibility warrants automatic excommunication and is considered a mortal sin if the three conditions regarding mortal sins are met.* Thus, according to Catholic teaching, if you reject papal infallibility knowing the teaching of the Church but disbelieving it to be true, you are going to hell* unless you confess your sin.
I don’t believe any of this of course, but that is the Catholic teaching.
If you reject this teaching you are guilty of a sin which constitutes Grave Matter.
The absolute culpability which you incur is entirely a matter between you and Our Lord.
If when you die and are faced with your Judgement the question is whether you are disposed to accept the judgement and Forgiveness of the Lord, or whether you will reject that judgement and forgiveness and cast yourself into the Abyss.
The Church teaching is that you are guilt of Grave Matter which has the Potential to be a mortal sin.
The Church cannot and does not attempt to cast the judgement which is reserved to God Alone - the Judgement on the individual Soul.
Confessing your sin with your lips without inward repentance is like whistling against the wind. It could itself be the sin of boasting.
It is repentance from the sin which is required for forgiveness. The sacrament of Reconciliation uses oral confession as a means of expressing that repentance and complying with the bibles advice to confess.
If you confess but are not repentant your confession is worthless.
If you repent but are unable to confess, then the Lord will see what is in your Heart.
Please go back and re-read my earlier posts. there is a big difference between ideologically stating that a particular position is dogmatically defined, and saying that a particular person is objectively in a state of Mortal Sin for disagreeing with it.
If you are truly interested in seeking the truth on the matter of papal infalibility you must resolve that issue.
The sinfulness of being in a state of obstinate heresy has been clearly defined here. If you are in a situation where you in good conscience cannot accept Papal infallibility, but accept the Orthodox position then you must ask yourself if you should convert to Orthodoxy. If that is what you truly believe, irrespective of the objective truth taught by the Universal Church, it is sinful to remain in a church you “know” to be “Wrong” on such a fundamental issue.
You must either correct your conscience if it is in error, or you are morally obliged to follow your conscience if you know it to be correctly formed.
Either way, you should consider whether or not to continue to call yourself “Catholic” on your profile.
I personally suspect you are in error in your interpretation of historical events, but I have not studied them as you seem to have. It would be better for others to assist you further in that area. - that should also be done in a separate thread.
M
minion
Guest
At the danger of going off topic, one of the first things that have to be defined is what is meant by “tradition.” Pope Benedict XVI actually addresses your objection in one of his books, “God’s Word.” The book has a lot of big words I didn’t know, so I had a hard time understanding it. Some of my objections to Catholicism were similar to yours yet different, so I didn’t find the following relevant, but you might find it interesting.But basically, it’s quite simple. If papal infallibility is correct, nothing the Pope pronounces to be infallibly true can be false. This teaching is based on 2 things…One is tradition.
The concept of succession was clearly formulated, as von Capenhausen has impressively demonstrated, in the anti-Gnostic polemics of the second century, its purpose was to contrast the true apostolic tradition of the Church withe the pseudo-apostolic tradition of Gnosis. It is therefore from the outset, closely connected with the questions of what is truly apostolic; in particular, it is clear that successio and traditio were originally neighboring terms; the two concepts were at first practically synonymous and were even referred to with a single word (“some greek word I don’t know how to type”), which signified both “tradition” and “succession.” **“Tradition” is indeed never a simple and anonymous handing on of teaching, but is linked to a person, is a living word, that has its conrete reality in faith. **And, vice versa, succession is never the taking over of some official powers that are then at the disposal of the officebearer;, rather, it is being taken into the service of the word, the office of testifying to something with which one has been entrusted and nwhich stands above its bearer, so that he fades into the background behind the thing he has taken over and is (to use the marvelous image from Isaiah and John the Baptist) just a voice that enables the word to be heard aloud in the world…
There’s more, but I’m afraid I’m not yet smart enough to understand the language with all the big words, but hope that is useful. I can barely get the jist of it myself, but that cited book might help you out.…The Church invoked (succession and tradition), not in order to set unwritten apostolic doctrine alongside Scripture, but precisely in order to dispute the existence of such secret heritage (referring to Gnosticism).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.