Is Rejecting Papal Infallibility a Mortal Sin?

[jinc1019]

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.

Again, I appreciate your suggestion, but there is not a SINGLE REASON why I should do that. It either is a mortal sin or not…and I am not going to confess it as a sin with any kind of honesty because I don’t believe it is a sin and I am not sorry or regretful for believing it. I believe it is the truth. So how then can a priest, who has no authority to declare what is and what is not a mortal sin, help me in your view?

 

[jinc1019]

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 +

I appreciate the assistance, your time, and your comments. But according to the Catholic Church, believing the pope is NOT infallible warrants AUTOMATIC excommunication…I think the reality is, Catholics, both in the laity and within the Church, don’t adhere to their own rules which are said to come from a Divine authority.

 

[jinc1019]

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.

I have already quoted this yes. An anathema, by the way, as defined by the 1917 Code of Canon Law, is synonymous with “excommunication.” And, if you do research on excommunication, you will find that this category of “sins” lead to automatic excommunication.

 

[jinc1019]

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.

I don’t agree with your assessment.

There is no infallible source of American history…Yet, you believe, as does everyone in the United States, that George Washington really did exist, really was the first president, really did help win the Revolutionary War…etc. But, wait, how is this possible without an infallible source?

Humans can definitively say events occurred or philosophies are true without an infallible authority guaranteeing anything at all. Your assumption, that everything just falls apart without an infallible authority, is not accurate. Diversity of opinion, however, will occur…some of which is bad depending on the topic. But, to assume we MUST have an infallible authority to lead us is just simply not true or supported by scripture. The Jews in the Old Testament never had a source of infallible authority leading them?

I can appreciate your passion…I admire it in many ways. But logically, this argument that Catholics make is just plain incorrect. That doesn’t mean I know for sure you are wrong…only that I am certain that you can have good Christianity without an infallible source.

 

[murraymuzz]

I have already quoted this yes. An anathema, by the way, as defined by the 1917 Code of Canon Law, is synonymous with “excommunication.” And, if you do research on excommunication, you will find that this category of “sins” lead to automatic excommunication.

Yes sorry, I didn’t go through all the posts. But I am now curious is the 1917 code of canon law still in effect? or was it replaced by the 1983 code? And if so that would then go on to mean their are no more definitions regarding anathema or excommunication. Unless we just stick with their original meanings. In which case my Catholic dictionary says:

ANATHEMA. A thing devoted or given over to evil, so that “anathema sit” means, “let him be accursed.” St. Paul at the end of 1 Corinthians pronounces this anathema on all who do not love our blessed Saviour. The Church has used the phrase “anathema sit” from the earliest times with reference to those whom she excludes from her communion either because of moral offences or because they persist in heresy. Thus one of the earliest councils—that of Elvira, held in 306—decrees in its fifty-second canon that those who placed libellous writings in the church should be anathematised; and the First General Council anathematised those who held the Arian heresy. General councils since then have usually given solemnity to their decrees on articles of faith by appending an Anathema.
Neither St. Paul nor the Church of God ever wished a soul to be damned. In pronouncing anathema against wilful heretics, the Church does but declare that they are excluded from her communion, and that they must, if they continue obstinate, perish eternally.

Addis, W. E., & Arnold, T. (1887). A Catholic Dictionary (Sixth Edition, With Additions) (24). New York: The Catholic Publication Society Co.

 

[jinc1019]

Yes sorry, I didn’t go through all the posts. But I am now curious is the 1917 code of canon law still in effect? or was it replaced by the 1983 code? And if so that would then go on to mean their are no more definitions regarding anathema or excommunication. Unless we just stick with their original meanings. In which case my Catholic dictionary says:

ANATHEMA. A thing devoted or given over to evil, so that “anathema sit” means, “let him be accursed.” St. Paul at the end of 1 Corinthians pronounces this anathema on all who do not love our blessed Saviour. The Church has used the phrase “anathema sit” from the earliest times with reference to those whom she excludes from her communion either because of moral offences or because they persist in heresy. Thus one of the earliest councils—that of Elvira, held in 306—decrees in its fifty-second canon that those who placed libellous writings in the church should be anathematised; and the First General Council anathematised those who held the Arian heresy. General councils since then have usually given solemnity to their decrees on articles of faith by appending an Anathema.
Neither St. Paul nor the Church of God ever wished a soul to be damned. In pronouncing anathema against wilful heretics, the Church does but declare that they are excluded from her communion, and that they must, if they continue obstinate, perish eternally.

Addis, W. E., & Arnold, T. (1887). A Catholic Dictionary (Sixth Edition, With Additions) (24). New York: The Catholic Publication Society Co.

From what I have read by Jimmy Akin and others…the word “anathema” no longer exists in the Code of Cannon Law, but it still means “excommunication,” which is obviously still in Canon Law…so there is no problem. Everyone just should know that “anathema” means “excommunication.”

 

[steve_b]

I don’t agree with your assessment.

There is no infallible source of American history…Yet, you believe, as does everyone in the United States, that George Washington really did exist, really was the first president, really did help win the Revolutionary War…etc. But, wait, how is this possible without an infallible source?

Humans can definitively say events occurred or philosophies are true without an infallible authority guaranteeing anything at all. Your assumption, that everything just falls apart without an infallible authority, is not accurate. Diversity of opinion, however, will occur…some of which is bad depending on the topic. But, to assume we MUST have an infallible authority to lead us is just simply not true or supported by scripture. The Jews in the Old Testament never had a source of infallible authority leading them?

I can appreciate your passion…I admire it in many ways. But logically, this argument that Catholics make is just plain incorrect. That doesn’t mean I know for sure you are wrong…only that I am certain that you can have good Christianity without an infallible source.

You respond way too quickly on what I wrote. And didn’t respond to anything I wrote.

People have been saying you’re attacking a characature. And you are.

The Church is very secific on the definition of papal infallibility. Popes aren’t infallible on everything. They can be erronious on all kinds of subjects. However on faith and morals, they are prevented by the Holy spirit from “teaching” error to the Church.

In 2000 years of Church history, show where a pope taught error on a matter of faith or morals to the Church.

 

[murraymuzz]

From what I have read by Jimmy Akin and others…the word “anathema” no longer exists in the Code of Cannon Law, but it still means “excommunication,” which is obviously still in Canon Law…so there is no problem. Everyone just should know that “anathema” means “excommunication.”

Fair enough, but in the current code of canon law, excommunication is not defined at all, its not even mentioned!

I recant above statement as the fallible human being I am.

 

[davidv]

Again, I appreciate your suggestion, but there is not a SINGLE REASON why I should do that. It either is a mortal sin or not…and I am not going to confess it as a sin with any kind of honesty because I don’t believe it is a sin and I am not sorry or regretful for believing it. I believe it is the truth. So how then can a priest, who has no authority to declare what is and what is not a mortal sin, help me in your view?

According to the CCC your judgement as to the sinful nature of you denial is faulty.

Faith

2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith"9 as our first obligation. He shows that “ignorance of God” is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.10 Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.
2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness. 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

What you have described fits the definition of incredulity. It is a sinful act, whether mortal or not.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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?

Why not email the Pope about this?

 

[murraymuzz]

Maybe this will help if you have a spare 3 hours?

youtube.com/watch?v=_sBCOfH1maE

Very good debate and informative.

 

[pablope]

Again, I appreciate your suggestion, but there is not a SINGLE REASON why I should do that. It either is a mortal sin or not…and I am not going to confess it as a sin with any kind of honesty because I don’t believe it is a sin and I am not sorry or regretful for believing it. I believe it is the truth. So how then can a priest, who has no authority to declare what is and what is not a mortal sin, help me in your view?

I did not say confess…I suggested to talk to him under the seal of confession. And you will not really know until you talk to one. I would suggest look for a priest that is well versed in Moral Theology.

 

[anruari]

Fair enough, but in the current code of canon law, excommunication is not defined at all, its not even mentioned!

I recant above statement as the fallible human being I am.

I take it you’ve red the code through?

because if you did you missed this part:
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P54.HTM

and several others which explicitly define crimes which incur excommunication either automatically or following some form of ecclesiastical trial.

The most serious are:
To procure on behalf of yourself or another a successful abortion, or to materially assist in such.
To breach the seal of the Confessional
Desecration of the Blessed Sacrament

There are others. The above link is only one section.

This Wikipedia article summs them up with links to the relevant sections of the code

 

[MarkInOregon]

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

I confused. What prohibits one from receiving communion? You state that you already know that you shouldn’t receive communion. Doesn’t that shed some light on your question?

Peace,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

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 think you know it is not a “simple” question. There are several conditions that need be met before a sin can be mortal. There are numerous threads on this issue and I suggest you explore them. As to your particular case–none of us will be able to judge you regarding whether or not this is a mortal sin for you. I also suggest the CCC.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Deconi]

Rejecting Papal Infallibility is not a mortal sin! What stems from that rejection - or more accurately - what you do as a Catholic that stem DIRECTLY from that rejection CAN/MIGHT be! - or be detrimental to the welfare of your soul.

It’s like being in the Ark and you do not have faith in the Captain or trust that he knows what he’s doing in guiding or steering the ship! The choices are that you don’t trust him but you do not want to jump overboard or take out a lifeboat by yourself (Remain Catholic inspite your doubts) or the alternative - that you don’t trust him and you know better so you’re off (leave the Church)

The first position - most Catholics fit here - for they do not know or understand all things The Church proclaims and does, yet they “know” enough not to leave because on faith they feel safer here

The second position - speaks for itself in regards those who leave - and applicable to all who persevere in other Christian faith-beliefs.

The Pope, of course, will never hold any human being to mortal sin for not accepting his Infallibility status, nor even proclaim that infallibility as a base of any announcements, but continues to ‘see’ the Catholic and non-Catholic, Christian and non-Christian in the same light, as children of God, and included in all ‘revealed’ truths proclaimed.

 

[murraymuzz]

Ok so in regards to whether rejecting a dogma is a mortal sin, it seems that it can be. Rejecting dogma comes under the category of heresy. So the question that needs to be looked at whether heresy is a sin.

First the definition of heresy is:
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

So if one falls under the definition of Can. 751, then the punishment is this:
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; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

So the latin meaning there is automatic excommunication.

But however we want to know whether heresy is a mortal sin. Im going to get a bit technical now.

In Galatians 5:20-21 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

The things mentioned above are the things which prevent us from inheriting the kingdom of God, which are in essence sins.

Now the original Greek translation goes something like this Gal 5:20-21
20 εἰδωλολατρία, φαρμακεία, ἔχθραι, ⸂ἔρις, ζῆλος⸃, θυμοί, ἐριθεῖαι, διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις, 21 ⸀φθόνοι, μέθαι, κῶμοι, καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις, ἃ προλέγω ὑμῖν ⸀καθὼς προεῖπον ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν.

Now the word I have underlined, bolded and italic-ed is the root word of heresy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

Feel free to check the etymology of the word heresy.

Also the CCC uses the above passage when defining sins.
1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. the Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."127

Anyway so we have heresy listed as something that will prevent you from inheriting the kingdom of God. However normal methods apply in determining whether one is in mortal sin. As the CCC tells us

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

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

And so it seems logical to conclude, if someone is going to incur the penalty of Can. 1364
for a heresy, then they will also be in mortal sin as they had full knowledge of the consequences and gave consent of their free will.

 

[steve_b]

Ok so in regards to whether rejecting a dogma is a mortal sin, it seems that it can be. Rejecting dogma comes under the category of heresy. So the question that needs to be looked at whether heresy is a sin.

First the definition of heresy is:
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

So if one falls under the definition of Can. 751, then the punishment is this:
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; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

So the latin meaning there is automatic excommunication.

But however we want to know whether heresy is a mortal sin. Im going to get a bit technical now.

In Galatians 5:20-21 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

The things mentioned above are the things which prevent us from inheriting the kingdom of God, which are in essence sins.

Now the original Greek translation goes something like this Gal 5:20-21
20 εἰδωλολατρία, φαρμακεία, ἔχθραι, ⸂ἔρις, ζῆλος⸃, θυμοί, ἐριθεῖαι, διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις, 21 ⸀φθόνοι, μέθαι, κῶμοι, καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις, ἃ προλέγω ὑμῖν ⸀καθὼς προεῖπον ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν.

Now the word I have underlined, bolded and italic-ed is the root word of heresy

Feel free to check the etymology of the word heresy.

It’s true. I’ve used this passage many times myself. Note in Gal 5:20 εἰδωλολατρία φαρμακεία ἔχθραι ἔρις ζῆλος θυμοί ἐριθείαι διχοστασίαι αἱρέσεις the word in front of that, fits in with this as well, and is extremely important for one to know and avoid that sin as well. διχοστασία dichostasia] = sedition/division from the Church. That being the Catholic Church

*Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all κατά kata…ὅλοςholos] Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…" iow the Church is the **Kataholos Church = Catholic Church **The English word catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole. *http://www.catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means
m:

Also the CCC uses the above passage when defining sins.
1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. the Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."127

Anyway so we have heresy listed as something that will prevent you from inheriting the kingdom of God. However normal methods apply in determining whether one is in mortal sin. As the CCC tells us

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

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

And so it seems logical to conclude, if someone is going to incur the penalty of Can. 1364
for a heresy, then they will also be in mortal sin as they had full knowledge of the consequences and gave consent of their free will.

Well done.