Is Rejecting Papal Infallibility a Mortal Sin?

[jinc1019]

I appreciate the responses…I have read through them all and I am grateful always for all of your time.

To address some of your concerns…based on the rules established by the Church, I am committing a mortal sin. I understand that they themselves cannot make that call because they don’t know specifically what I believe and know internally…However, what they have done is said: If a hypothetical person knows the teachings of the Church regarding papal infallibility, doesn’t believe it truly and completely, and continues to hold this belief for an extended period of time, they have committed a mortal sin and are to be excommunicated. And, if they do not confess that sin, they will go to hell. That is the teaching.

Now, they are obviously incapable of saying to me…“Justin, you are going to hell because you don’t believe in papal infallibility,” because they don’t know whether I truly internally disbelieve or not. However, they can say, “Justin you are going to hell IF you disbelieve in papal infallibility knowing the teachings of the Church and refusing to believe them, UNLESS you confess your sins and stop believing this.”

This precisely what has happened. And what an absurd position it is to have. Throughout the Bible, Jesus declares numerous people are saved without inquiring what their position is on a whole host of issues, including papal infallibility. Yet today, it is treated as a fact by the Church that all who disbelieve in this doctrine are going to hell if they were baptized in the Catholic Church and don’t change their minds on the issue. Because, even if I were to confess this as a sin, my mind wouldn’t change and I would still be in a state of mortal sin.

 

[jinc1019]

This addresses the issue of whether or not a person can go to heaven without having confessed a mortal sin.
catholic.com/quickquestions/is-it-possible-for-a-person-with-a-mortal-sin-still-on-his-soul-to-die-and-go-to-heav

 

[Michael_Allen]

Keep your gaze on Jesus, Jinc. I trust all will be well with that.

 

[pablope]

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

Then you need to go higher…to a priest.

 

[minion]

Now, they are obviously incapable of saying to me…“Justin, you are going to hell because you don’t believe in papal infallibility,” because they don’t know whether I truly internally disbelieve or not. However, they can say, “Justin you are going to hell IF you disbelieve in papal infallibility knowing the teachings of the Church and refusing to believe them, UNLESS you confess your sins and stop believing this.”

This precisely what has happened. And what an absurd position it is to have. Throughout the Bible, Jesus declares numerous people are saved without inquiring what their position is on a whole host of issues, including papal infallibility. Yet today, it is treated as a fact by the Church that all who disbelieve in this doctrine are going to hell if they were baptized in the Catholic Church and don’t change their minds on the issue. Because, even if I were to confess this as a sin, my mind wouldn’t change and I would still be in a state of mortal sin.

Are you absolutely certain what people here have told you is correct?

Just from my observation, the majority of Catholics are cafeteria Catholics (especially on contraception)…that’s a lot of mortal sin to go around if rejecting particular doctrine or moral teaching is considered a mortal sin. I would think some degree of invincible ignorance would come into play if one is in sincere doubt (and not just trying to skip on some teaching they’re scared of, like confession)…and maybe a longer time in purgatory at worst.

When I think of outright heretics committing mortal sin, I think of people like Giordano Bruno, who not only disbelieve, but also cause scandal and actively undermine the Church. I don’t think of cafeteria Catholics…I think of traitor clergy, or the heretical theologians claiming to be Catholic but leading Catholics astray with false teachings.

Still, any priest lurking here that can give a clear answer, with evidence and citation?

 

[underacloud]

I appreciate the responses…I have read through them all and I am grateful always for all of your time.

To address some of your concerns…based on the rules established by the Church, I am committing a mortal sin. I understand that they themselves cannot make that call because they don’t know specifically what I believe and know internally…However, what they have done is said: If a hypothetical person knows the teachings of the Church regarding papal infallibility, doesn’t believe it truly and completely, and continues to hold this belief for an extended period of time, they have committed a mortal sin and are to be excommunicated. And, if they do not confess that sin, they will go to hell. That is the teaching.

Now, they are obviously incapable of saying to me…“Justin, you are going to hell because you don’t believe in papal infallibility,” because they don’t know whether I truly internally disbelieve or not. However, they can say, “Justin you are going to hell IF you disbelieve in papal infallibility knowing the teachings of the Church and refusing to believe them, UNLESS you confess your sins and stop believing this.”

This precisely what has happened. And what an absurd position it is to have. Throughout the Bible, Jesus declares numerous people are saved without inquiring what their position is on a whole host of issues, including papal infallibility. Yet today, it is treated as a fact by the Church that all who disbelieve in this doctrine are going to hell if they were baptized in the Catholic Church and don’t change their minds on the issue. Because, even if I were to confess this as a sin, my mind wouldn’t change and I would still be in a state of mortal sin.

This addresses the issue of whether or not a person can go to heaven without having confessed a mortal sin.
catholic.com/quickquestions/is-it-possible-for-a-person-with-a-mortal-sin-still-on-his-soul-to-die-and-go-to-heav

No, such a conslusion is not clear, as others have tried to explain regarding the requriements for personal mortal sin.

A person who dies in mortal sin will go to hell, that is correct. But we cannot know who is or is not in a state or mortal sin, regardless of whether they have committed a sin of objectively grave matter.

Is your sin grave matter? Maybe, maybe not. Having doubts is not automatically heresy. It depends on whether your doubt is obstinate.

Do you have full knowledge? Yes, it would seem so, that is the point of this thread.

Do you have deliberate consent? Again, this relates to whether your doubt is obstinate. You will not be in a state of mortal sin if your doubts are involuntary and you are still making some honest attempt to resolve them. You believe what you do having clearly studied the issue and attempted to resolve your doubts. I believe you are wrong, the Church teaches you are wrong, but you seem to be very honest in your approach. As I’ve said before, as long as you continue to hold the (even very remote) possibility that the Church is right and you are mistaken, it can be argued that your doubt is not obstinate and you could remain in good standing with the Church. A priest, in the sacrament of confession, can bind or loose this sin for you, with the Church’s full authority to do so, so you can find your answer there.

 

[underacloud]

Just from my observation, the majority of Catholics are cafeteria Catholics (especially on contraception)…that’s a lot of mortal sin to go around if rejecting particular doctrine or moral teaching is considered a mortal sin. **I would think some degree of invincible ignorance would come into play **if one is in sincere doubt (and not just trying to skip on some teaching they’re scared of, like confession)…and maybe a longer time in purgatory at worst.

Precisely.

Invincible ignorance is ignorance that is involuntary. Ingorance that cannot be removed even though a person employs appropriate moral diligence. Invincible ignorance removes culpability for objectively mortal sin.

The OP does not reject this teaching (papal infalability) lightly and has attempted to understand the teaching. It seems the OP has employed a good degree of moral diligence in exploring the issue. His current conclusion is at odds with the Church, so he should continue to employ moral diligence in exploring the issue. While he does so, his ignorance could be said to remain involuntary.

 

[Mike_SoCal]

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?

No part of your question is a Biblical teaching.

However, the Catholic Church does teach that the Pope can make an infallible statement but rarely ever does.

Psalm 89:26
He shall cry to me, ‘Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.

1 Corinthians 10:4
and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

 

[steve_b]

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?

If you’ve already listed those specific historical cases in a previous response on this thread, just say so. However I’ve looked at all your posts and didn’t see where you gave that information. Maybe I missed it.

 

[jinc1019]

Then you need to go higher…to a priest.

Why would I go to a priest when I have the answer directly from the Catholic Church itself? There is no need for it…However, I will consider doing it anyway just to get another opinion…But again, I have already located the specific Catholic teachings.

 

[jinc1019]

If you’ve already listed those specific historical cases in a previous response on this thread, just say so. However I’ve looked at all your posts and didn’t see where you gave that information. Maybe I missed it.

Hey Steve…Yeah it is in there…the title of the thread has papal infallibility right in it…It’s pretty old at this point but it should be there.

 

[Aloysium]

Hey Steve…Yeah it is in there…the title of the thread has papal infallibility right in it…It’s pretty old at this point but it should be there.

this is the only thing I could find:

Fallible men, attached to her, and acting within and on behalf of her, however can and do err. The schisms and divisions within the Body of Christ come only from the sins and shortcomings of humankind, not from Christ, who is the Head. The Church is ensouled by the Holy Spirit, and it is this divinity that preserves her from error. Like Jesus, however, the Church is incarnational, with both divine and human elements. Just as Jesus grew hungry and tired, so the human part of the Church is subject to the ailments of the fallen human nature. But it is wrong to blame Jesus for the betrayal of Judas, or to lay the sins of men at the feet of His Holy and spotless bride.

From what I understand you do not believe in Papal infallibility because the Pope is a man and thus is fallible. There could be a new Judas among us. And your suggestion supposes that God would permit this. I do not understand why He would sacrifice His Church. One may believe that the RCC is not be His Church. Lots of ppl have this belief; they are not Catholics obviously. One may believe that it is beyond His power or desire to intervene, again others, Deists would agree, but not Catholics.
Is it a mortal sin? You tell me.

 

[minion]

Precisely.

Invincible ignorance is ignorance that is involuntary. Ingorance that cannot be removed even though a person employs appropriate moral diligence. Invincible ignorance removes culpability for objectively mortal sin.

The OP does not reject this teaching (papal infalability) lightly and has attempted to understand the teaching. It seems the OP has employed a good degree of moral diligence in exploring the issue. His current conclusion is at odds with the Church, so he should continue to employ moral diligence in exploring the issue. While he does so, his ignorance could be said to remain involuntary.

So then, I may disagree with the conclusion that jinc came to, correct? That someone with sincere doubt of Papal Infallibility (and thus any Catholic doctrine), despite their own diligence, is not committing a mortal sin? It makes sense to me, if someone is keeping with their integrity, but a certain honesty with oneself is involved.

From what I understand, Hans Kung’s position is exactly that of jinc’s - he proclaims outright that he is against Papal Infallibility, and while he has been stripped of teaching Catholic theology, he is still “a Catholic priest in good standing.” He was still in good enough relations with Pope Benedict XVI to have lunch with him, and Kung was never excommunicated, or formally declared a heretic

 

[underacloud]

So then, I may disagree with the conclusion that jinc came to, correct? That someone with sincere doubt of Papal Infallibility (and thus any Catholic doctrine), despite their own diligence, is not committing a mortal sin? It makes sense to me, if someone is keeping with their integrity, but a certain honesty with oneself is involved.

From what I understand, Hans Kung’s position is exactly that of jinc’s - he proclaims outright that he is against Papal Infallibility, and while he has been stripped of teaching Catholic theology, he is still “a Catholic priest in good standing.” He was still in good enough relations with Pope Benedict XVI to have lunch with him, and Kung was never excommunicated, or formally declared a heretic

Right, so if the Church hasn’t seen the need to excommunicate Hans Kung, who has not only publicly denied papal infallibility but published a book on it, I’m not sure why jinc is so concerned about this issue.

I suspect almost any Catholic can find areas of doctrine that are hard to accept, understand, or agree with even after careful consideration and study. Faith is a lifelong process and we continue to work on understanding and seeking the truth. Having honest doubts is a part of that process, and none of us progresses in faith without exploring our doubts.

 

[pablope]

Why would I go to a priest when I have the answer directly from the Catholic Church itself? There is no need for it…However, I will consider doing it anyway just to get another opinion…But again, I have already located the specific Catholic teachings.

Catholic teaching is subject to one’s interpretation too. Are you going to base what you decide on opinion? Your own fallible interpretation?

As others have suggested…go to a priest under the seal of confession. And don’t do it to get an opinion…go do it because you seek counsel…and spiritual help.

 

[Michael_Allen]

From what I understand, Hans Kung’s position is exactly that of jinc’s - he proclaims outright that he is against Papal Infallibility, and while he has been stripped of teaching Catholic theology, he is still “a Catholic priest in good standing.” He was still in good enough relations with Pope Benedict XVI to have lunch with him, and Kung was never excommunicated, or formally declared a heretic

I think that is a good example where in the “real Church” (not an internet forum of anonymous avatars) there is careful and pastoral application of rules. It’s when we abstract rules from the pastoral setting that we end up in a pickle and wonder why the real Church is so different from the black and white rules. At the end of the day Church is lived, not read about in a rule book. The priestly life and status of Hans Kung, a priest willing to thoughtfully but challenge Church doctrine, is a good example of that.

God bless you all this Maundy Thursday +

 

[murraymuzz]

We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, is, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable.*
But if anyone—which may GOD avert!—presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema.

McNabb, V. (1907). The Decrees of the Vatican Council (46–47). New York: Benziger Brothers.

 

[steve_b]

Hey Steve…Yeah it is in there…the title of the thread has papal infallibility right in it…It’s pretty old at this point but it should be there.

I was talking about this thread. Phew!!! I feel better. I thought for a moment my eyes were going bad

Just thinking out loud, the logical conclusion rejecting* papal infalibility* on faith and morals is,

• faith and morals that we understand to be true, aren’t necessarily so. Because, as we understand them now then, could be full of errors. So why hold the line on anything that could be false? It absolutely leads to relativism, which really attacks authority. We decide what we will believe
• Since there is no infallible instrument of truth, we can establish our own truths. You can have your truth and I can have mine. A type of scizophrenic truth which isn’t truth at all.
• it means things like the canon of scripture could also be erronious. Maybe we have a good set of books and maybe we don’t. Therefore, one can relativize all of them, or reject them all together. Who can say no or yes with absolute authority? Who has the power to end all debate?
• Maybe Jesus said or maybe He didn’t really say to His apostles, I’ll send the HS to lead you into all truth. If there is no infallible source, I can just hear all the Pilates of the world saying with a sneer, pffffft! “what is truth”

The examples one can add to this go on and on, but I think you get where I’m going with this.

When we say the creed at the beginning of mass, we state our belief before God and then say Amen at the end. Which means I swear, I agree that everything I just said is true… And evertything we’re doing here at mass I believe. If one rejects papal infallibility (on matters of faith and morals), then one can’t say Amen at the end of the creed, because when one says “I believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church” they really don’t believe that…

Which also means, when one is going to receive the Eucharist, they can’t say Amen either, because Amen is all encompassing with what the Church teaches, and they can’t say Amen to that, because it would be a lie for them.

Bottomline, many things start collapsing. And one in effect is really saying, I accept God on my terms, not on His. Which means they worship a characature, i.e. an idol.

 

[jinc1019]

this is the only thing I could find:

From what I understand you do not believe in Papal infallibility because the Pope is a man and thus is fallible. There could be a new Judas among us. And your suggestion supposes that God would permit this. I do not understand why He would sacrifice His Church. One may believe that the RCC is not be His Church. Lots of ppl have this belief; they are not Catholics obviously. One may believe that it is beyond His power or desire to intervene, again others, Deists would agree, but not Catholics.
Is it a mortal sin? You tell me.

Your argument, which is an old Catholic argument, that it is illogical that God would allow the Catholic Church to fabricate any doctrinal position, but especially one this important, doesn’t hold any water. One could easily make the argument, why would God allow the Catholic Church to do ANY of the horrible things that it has done over the years? Why would God allow people to be burned at the stake? Why would God allow Galileo to go through what he did even though he was right and the Church was wrong? The list goes on and on.

And to answer your question, according to the Catholic Church, it is a mortal sin so long as you truly do believe it is wrong and you are not just “unsure.” However, other statements from the Catholic Church about Protestants generally make this whole issue unclear.

 

[jinc1019]

So then, I may disagree with the conclusion that jinc came to, correct? That someone with sincere doubt of Papal Infallibility (and thus any Catholic doctrine), despite their own diligence, is not committing a mortal sin? It makes sense to me, if someone is keeping with their integrity, but a certain honesty with oneself is involved.

From what I understand, Hans Kung’s position is exactly that of jinc’s - he proclaims outright that he is against Papal Infallibility, and while he has been stripped of teaching Catholic theology, he is still “a Catholic priest in good standing.” He was still in good enough relations with Pope Benedict XVI to have lunch with him, and Kung was never excommunicated, or formally declared a heretic

Really great point.

The Vatican 2 position on Protestants also confuses things…Because virtually all Protestants reject the Pope, a mortal sin, and many of them do not have valid holy orders for confession, so they all die with mortal sin, thus going to hell…All according to the Catholic Church of course. But the Catholic Church says Protestants can go to heaven and are apart of the Christian community…Very confusing.