Is the Catechism Inerrant?

[petra]

I’ve had a question in the queue of the Ask an Apologist forum for about a week, and it still hasn’t shown up. While I’m waiting for an authoritative answer, I thought I’d post it here, as well.

I’m a fairly new Catholic, so forgive my ignorance, but is the Catechism intended to be inerrant? It’s my understanding that Sacred Tradition is the oral teachings of the apostles, handed down to us. These oral teachings . . . did they eventually get written down? Is this the Catechism? Is the Catechism the embodiment of Sacred Tradition?

I have found the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be a beautiful and thorough treatment of every doctrine central to the Christian faith. However, there is one part that is very troubling to me. CCC 460 contains the statement, “For the son of God became man so that we might become God.” I understand the concept of being a partaker of God’s divine nature: becoming Christ-like or God-like to the extent that we surrender ourselves to His will and become holy. But there should be no confusion between the Creator and his creation. There should be no confusion between our own personage and God’s personage. We don’t become Divine in the Mormon or New Age sense. (I actually became aware of this section in the CCC from a Mormon. He thinks CCC 460 is great, because that is what Mormonism teaches!) Are Catholics to treat the passage as an error, or are we obligated to believe this?

There is another current thread dealing with problematic wording in the Catechism. While there are some passages of scripture that are difficult to interpret, the meaning of most of scripture is transparent and understandable. It would seem that the Catechism would provide the opportunity to clarify Scripture passages that may be confusing. But in this instance, at best, it is introducing confusion and, at worst, is promoting a doctrine contrary to the Bible (that we can become God).

Thoughts anyone?

 

[kellie]

Hi petra,

I hope this helps. This is the first time I have researched something to give an answer, so please dont take my answer as right, but it may help.

This site - catholicdoors.com/catechis/cat0422.htm
discusses this section of the CCC

I clicked on the reference to number 460 and got this quote…

1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a “partaker of the divine nature,” [2 Cor 5:17; 2 Pet 1:4; cf. Gal 4:5-7] member of Christ and co-heir with him, [Cf. l Cor 6:15; 12:27; Rom 8:17] and a temple of the Holy Spirit. [Cf. l Cor 6:19] [505, 460]

I think we partake in the divinity of Christ, to become God, not as in the Divine God, but as in a Son of God.

We can never become God, but I think we can become an adopted son of God, and seen as Jesus is God and also Son of God, then that is what the CCC is meaning. As adopted, we dont take on the divinity of God or Jesus though.

Hope this helps until an apologist answers.

Love Kellie

 

[Dr.Colossus]

In the Mass the priest says the words “By the mystery of this Body and Blood may we come to share in the divinity of Him who chose to share in our humanity.” The Catechism therefore states it more simply “that we might become God.” I think a more proper translation would have been “that we might become Divine”, so as not to confuse it with the One True God.

Regarding the CCC, no it is not 100% inerrant. There are many things in the Catechism that could be changed in the future, and hence are not doctrine or dogma. The sections regarding the death penalty, for instance, suggest that it is only to be used to maintain the safety of the innocent. However, at the Council of Trent, it was maintained that the primary use of capital punishment was justice against the criminal. It’s an example of the current trend of social thinking in the Church. This does not make it wrong, but it is possible that the Church will decide otherwise in the future.

Basically, while the CCC is not inerrant, it is the authentic Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church. As Catholics, we are called to assent to that authority, whether “infallible” or not, because it is the Church that Christ founded with the promise that “the gates of Hades will not prevail against it”.

 

[Vincent]

Petra:

What might be helpful is for your Mormon friend to exactly define what they mean when they say that human beings to become gods. It may be very different than from what St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius and St. Thomas Aquinas mean when they assert (in paraphrase) “The Son of God became the Son of Man so that sons of men may become sons of God.”

One analogy is, if God is a consuming fire (as Hebrews 12:29 states), then when we come into union with God, we get set on fire ourselves. In that sense, we “become” fire, not intrinsically, but by participation. Apart from that participation, nothing can be on fire.

An imperfect analogy, of course.

 

[petra]

kellie:

Hi petra,

I hope this helps. This is the first time I have researched something to give an answer, so please dont take my answer as right, but it may help.

Cool! Thank you for making that effort to help me!

I clicked on the reference to number 460 and got this quote…

1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a “partaker of the divine nature,” [2 Cor 5:17; 2 Pet 1:4; cf. Gal 4:5-7] member of Christ and co-heir with him, [Cf. l Cor 6:15; 12:27; Rom 8:17] and a temple of the Holy Spirit. [Cf. l Cor 6:19] [505, 460]

I think we partake in the divinity of Christ, to become God, not as in the Divine God, but as in a Son of God.

We can never become God, but I think we can become an adopted son of God, and seen as Jesus is God and also Son of God, then that is what the CCC is meaning. As adopted, we dont take on the divinity of God or Jesus though.

Almost everything in section 460 says exactly what you state. Even the last sentence, a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas, could loosely be interpreted to mean the same (although this wording could also deceive people.) But the statement in question says we become God – not a god or not a partaker of God’s nature or not god-like or not united with Him. It says we become Him.

So with all the other statements that convey a unified meaning of partaking in God’s divine nature, why does the Church introduce a statement that plainly means something different? The Church is suppose to clarify ambiguities, not advance them. Distinctions such as this are the difference between orthodoxy and heresy.

I’m not saying the Catholic Church is heretical! In fact, if a group started advancing teachings that our own personage could become absorbed into God’s personage—with the effect that there is not longer a distinction between Creator and creation—I have no doubt the Church would properly declare such a group in schism.

But the statement in question is clearly an error in the Catechism. I just wanted to know whether we are obligated to believe it or not.

Peace to you,
petra

 

[petra]

Dr. Colossus:

In the Mass the priest says the words “By the mystery of this Body and Blood may we come to share in the divinity of Him who chose to share in our humanity.” The Catechism therefore states it more simply “that we might become God.” I think a more proper translation would have been “that we might become Divine”, so as not to confuse it with the One True God.

I like the wording in Mass—sharing in the divinity of Christ does not imply anything beyond that.

Regarding the CCC, no it is not 100% inerrant. There are many things in the Catechism that could be changed in the future, and hence are not doctrine or dogma. The sections regarding the death penalty, for instance, suggest that it is only to be used to maintain the safety of the innocent. However, at the Council of Trent, it was maintained that the primary use of capital punishment was justice against the criminal. It’s an example of the current trend of social thinking in the Church. This does not make it wrong, but it is possible that the Church will decide otherwise in the future.

Basically, while the CCC is not inerrant, it is the authentic Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church. As Catholics, we are called to assent to that authority, whether “infallible” or not, because it is the Church that Christ founded with the promise that “the gates of Hades will not prevail against it”.

This is very interesting. If the teaching of the Magisterium may, on occasion, be errant, what exactly does it mean that “the gates of Hades will not prevail against it”? Does “prevailing” refer to unity and consensus?

 

[CANman]

There is no error in this statement. it musy be read in context. Read the verses prior to, and immediately after and you will see what the intent of the CCC really is. Any one can take one passage out of context and make it say something that was never intended to say.

It is also necessary to attain to the true meaning os the passage, to check out the referred to quotes that the CCC references.

hope this helps.

 

[petra]

Petra:

What might be helpful is for your Mormon friend to exactly define what they mean when they say that human beings to become gods. It may be very different than from what St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius and St. Thomas Aquinas mean when they assert (in paraphrase) “The Son of God became the Son of Man so that sons of men may become sons of God.”

Mormon doctrine teaches that humans have the potential to become a diety of their own planet. They teach that the Heavenly Father of this Earth was once a man from another world who progressed to godhood, as we may.

One analogy is, if God is a consuming fire (as Hebrews 12:29 states), then when we come into union with God, we get set on fire ourselves. In that sense, we “become” fire, not intrinsically, but by participation. Apart from that participation, nothing can be on fire.

I really like that analogy. The concept of being in union with God is clear from the scripture you reference, as well as many others. It is simple to understand that we abide in Him, partake of His nature, and take on qualities that He has, such as holiness.

But there is a disctinction between our personage and His personage. This is a disctinction that the one sentence in CCC460 does not make. Take the Trinity for example. There is no greater example of perfect unity. Yet, the Catholic Church (in response to heresy) clearly articulated that while all 3 Persons of the Trinity are One, they are distinct Persons. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. The Father is not Jesus. The Holy Spirit is not the Father. The 3 Persons are not the same individual in merely different forms. They are distinct individuals. The Church has gone to great length to clarify this.

Schism groups may say that the Catholic Church’s definition of the Trinity is splitting hairs. Yet, it is disctinctions such as this that make the difference between Truth and Error. Error has grave consequences—not because it isn’t in lockstep with the establishment—but because only the Truth will set us free. The sentence t I quoted in CCC460 advances a doctrine that is contrary to scripture, the rest of the Catechism, and the language used in the Mass.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

This is very interesting. If the teaching of the Magisterium may, on occasion, be errant, what exactly does it mean that “the gates of Hades will not prevail against it”? Does “prevailing” refer to unity and consensus?

The fallibility, or lack thereof, of the Magisterium falls under two categories. The first is matters of faith and morals. The second is everything else. The Magisterium is infallible when speaking on matters of faith and morals. This is what Christ referred to when He said that Hell will not prevail against His Church. In any other matter, however, the authority of the Church cannot be said to be completely infallible. This means that, as per my example, teachings such as acceptable use of capital punishment may change in the future. Another example would be the discipline of celibate priesthood. However, just because it is possible that such teachings could change does not mean we should afford them any less obedience.

Regarding your specific question of the phrasing “become God”, the infallibility of the Magisterium does not extend to include preventing poor interpretations. The Magisterium teaches that men are partakers in the Divine Nature. It does not teach that men can become God in a literal sense. Therefore, when writing the Catechism, the Church meant the phrase to mean exactly what it teaches. If it can be taken a different way, then the phrasing may be poor, but that does not make it errant. Remember that the Bible, which every Christian denomination holds to be inerrant, can be misinterpreted quite easily. The same can be said about the Catechism.

 

[Vincent]

CCC 460 can be misunderstood, just as Hebrews 12:29 can be misunderstood. In the latter, although the author speaks of God as a “consuming fire,” he obviously doesn’t mean that God’s essence is some kind of physical combustion.

Similarly, when the Church clarified the Son being “homoousious” with the Father, there was some debate as to whether it was an appropriate term, for Paul of Samosota previously used it in a heretical sense to mean that the divine nature was divided among the Father and the Son. As we know, the Council of Nicea decided on homoousious, but not in the sense that Paul of Samosota used it.

So the basic rule of interpretation is to interpret a passage according to the sense in which the author intended it. How are we to take “we might become God”? You could read the great “Defender of Nicea” St. Athanasius’s De Incarnatione, which the CCC quotes from. CCC 460 itself gives us a clue: “The Word became flesh to make us ‘partakers of the divine nature.’”

This doctrine is otherwise known as “theosis”. It’s especially emphasized in the Eastern Christianity.

In other words, the whole bit from St. Athanasius about “we might become God” is orthodox if it is understood as man being made by God to participate or partake in the life of the Trinity— not that we ontologically “transubstantiate” into the Supreme Being.

The same thing can be said of us being made “sons of God.” We know that there is only One Son who totally possesses the divine nature, with the Father and the Holy Spirit. When we say that we are made sons of God by adoption, we certainly don’t mean that the number of divine persons in the Godhead increase: the Trinity will not turn into a Quadrinity or more.

 

[petra]

Vincent:

CCC 460 can be misunderstood, just as Hebrews 12:29 can be misunderstood. In the latter, although the author speaks of God as a “consuming fire,” he obviously doesn’t mean that God’s essence is some kind of physical combustion.

Similarly, when the Church clarified the Son being “homoousious” with the Father, there was some debate as to whether it was an appropriate term, for Paul of Samosota previously used it in a heretical sense to mean that the divine nature was divided among the Father and the Son. As we know, the Council of Nicea decided on homoousious, but not in the sense that Paul of Samosota used it.

So the basic rule of interpretation is to interpret a passage according to the sense in which the author intended it. How are we to take “we might become God”? You could read the great “Defender of Nicea” St. Athanasius’s De Incarnatione, which the CCC quotes from. CCC 460 itself gives us a clue: “The Word became flesh to make us ‘partakers of the divine nature.’”

This doctrine is otherwise known as “theosis”. It’s especially emphasized in the Eastern Christianity.

In other words, the whole bit from St. Athanasius about “we might become God” is orthodox if it is understood as man being made by God to participate or partake in the life of the Trinity— not that we ontologically “transubstantiate” into the Supreme Being.

The same thing can be said of us being made “sons of God.” We know that there is only One Son who totally possesses the divine nature, with the Father and the Holy Spirit. When we say that we are made sons of God by adoption, we certainly don’t mean that the number of divine persons in the Godhead increase: the Trinity will not turn into a Quadrinity or more.

This is very helpful. Thank you!

 

[Matt16_18]

Archbishop William Levada had a role in writing the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Archbishop Levada came to our parish once to talk about the Catechism. I asked him if the teachings in the Catechism were infallible, or if there were some teachings that could possibly be changed in the future. (I was hoping for a nice simple answer of “yes”, they are all infallible.)

Bishop Levada chuckled, and then said, “I always get the hard questions first.” He explained that it is not correct to say that everything that is written in the Catechism are infallible teachings of the Church. First he read from the prologue of the CCC about why the Catechism was written, and then he opened up the CCC and read a paragraph about capital punishment to make a point. Unfortunately, I missed his point about capital punishment, but after reading Dr. Colossus’ posts, I think I see what Archbishop Levada was trying to teach.

Good questions petra, and good responses from all the posters.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

" I have found the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be a beautiful and thorough treatment of every doctrine central to the Christian faith. However, there is one part that is very troubling to me. CCC 460 contains the statement, “For the son of God became man so that we might become God.” "

First off CCC 460 says this before that specific line: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into comunion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.”

It is quoted from St. Anthanasus who is referring to Psalm 82:6 and 2 Peter 1:4

It is simply reflective of the Scriptures.

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

Bringing this thread back up as some as claimed in other threads that the catechism is not offical church teaching which it clearly is.

Referring to the Catechism in the Apostolic Letter Laetamur Magnopere, Pope John Paul II states

The Church now has at her dispoal this new, authorative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a “valid and legimate instrument for ecclesial communion” and as a “sure norm for teaching the faith”, as well as a “sure and authentic reference text” for preparing local catechisms.

and in the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, he states

The Catechism of the Catholic Church … is offered to every individual … who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

 

[Catholic2003]

From Exploring the Catechism of the Catholic Church by William H. Shannon:

In a seminar held on July 9, 1993, at Madrid in Spain, Cardinal Ratzinger said, “Every doctrinal point proposed by the Catechism has no authority but that which it already possesses.”

The cardinal makes a very important point that we must keep in mind when reading the Catechism: It is not inclusion in this book that gives authority to a particular statement. Rather, as the cardinal makes clear, whatever authority they have belonged to them before they were inserted into the Catechism. Understanding the cardinal’s principle will help us see that not everything in the Catechism is of equal authority or importance.

 

[dcdurel]

petra:

I’m a fairly new Catholic, so forgive my ignorance, but is the Catechism intended to be inerrant? It’s my understanding that Sacred Tradition is the oral teachings of the apostles, handed down to us. These oral teachings . . . did they eventually get written down? Is this the Catechism? Is the Catechism the embodiment of Sacred Tradition?
Thoughts anyone?

Yes, The GENERAL DIRECTORY FOR CATECHESIS, put out by Rome calls the
“Catechism of the Catholic Church, as a significant contemporary expression of the living Tradition of the Church”

That is why the Church calls the Catechism “a sure norm for teaching the faith” and not scripture. Scripture does not present the living Tradition of the Church.
Scripture was written to those who already knew doctrine, therefore it is great for “illuminating” doctrine, as the Church councils call it, and it is great as a “witness” to the teachings that have been handed down.
When the apostles taught the Gospel, they simply taught the teachings found in the explanations of the creed, the sacraments, the commandments and prayer. That is why all the early Christians knew clearly the basic teachings of Christianity, esp. about the sacraments, even sacraments such as confirmation, that are barely, if at all, mentioned in scripture. They had no confusion about the teachings of the Eucharist, because those teachings about the Eucharist were handed down in Sacred Tradition. Good and holy Protestants can’t agree on the teachings of Scripture on the Eucharist, because the primary purpose of Scripture is not to be a basis for teaching doctrine, but Scripture is first primarily for teaching salvation history, then it is useful for illuminating what the Church teaches and as a witness to what the Church teaches, then it useful for providing deeper material for the developement of doctrine, such as Mary being the ark of the covenant, etc.

 

[dcdurel]

petra:

I’ve had a question in the queue of the Ask an Apologist forum for about a week, and it still hasn’t shown up. While I’m waiting for an authoritative answer, I thought I’d post it here, as well.

I’m a fairly new Catholic, so forgive my ignorance, but is the Catechism intended to be inerrant? It’s my understanding that Sacred Tradition is the oral teachings of the apostles, handed down to us. These oral teachings . . . did they eventually get written down? Is this the Catechism? Is the Catechism the embodiment of Sacred Tradition?

I have found the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be a beautiful and thorough treatment of every doctrine central to the Christian faith. However, there is one part that is very troubling to me. CCC 460 contains the statement, “For the son of God became man so that we might become God.” I understand the concept of being a partaker of God’s divine nature: becoming Christ-like or God-like to the extent that we surrender ourselves to His will and become holy. But there should be no confusion between the Creator and his creation. There should be no confusion between our own personage and God’s personage. We don’t become Divine in the Mormon or New Age sense. (I actually became aware of this section in the CCC from a Mormon. He thinks CCC 460 is great, because that is what Mormonism teaches!) Are Catholics to treat the passage as an error, or are we obligated to believe this?

There is another current thread dealing with problematic wording in the Catechism. While there are some passages of scripture that are difficult to interpret, the meaning of most of scripture is transparent and understandable. It would seem that the Catechism would provide the opportunity to clarify Scripture passages that may be confusing. But in this instance, at best, it is introducing confusion and, at worst, is promoting a doctrine contrary to the Bible (that we can become God).

Thoughts anyone?

 

[dcdurel]

As to the question, “is the Catechism inerrant”?

We can say that since the Catechism presents the word of God in Sacred Tradition and Scripture, and this word of God is inerrant, then whenever the Catechism presents this Word of God, which is 90% of the time (I would roughly guess), then it has to be innerrant.

An example would be the teaching that the “Holy Spirit is God.” This is a teaching implied, but never directly stated in scripture.
Since this teaching has been handed down in apostolic Tradition, and the apostles learned it from Jesus or the Holy Spirit, then it is the Word of God, thus inerrant.

Not only that, but the Church is infallible in everything she teaches, even teachings that are not directly the Word of God. Thus, the other 9% (another very rough guess) of the Catechism which contain Church teachings that may not be directly Divine Revelation, are still inerrant.

The only parts which may not be inerrant are parts the Catechism will mention in passing, or parts that have to do with pastoral teaching, that is the application of teachings to our specific time and place.

In summary we can say that everything the Church teaches which is contained in the Catechism is inerrant, because the Church is infallible in all she teaches.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Whether the Catechism is “infallible” or not, I don’t see the passage in question as evidence that it is not.
CCC Para 460:

The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

The “son of God” has two different meanings. In the case of Jesus it means in the flesh. “Son of” also means “in the likeness of” so that when we say “you are an SOB” it really means “you are like a B.” We can qualify our sonship with God by saying, “yes but we are adopted” but adopted children, for all intents and purposes except the carnal, biological ones, are still children. Jesus calls us brothers; we need to accept that if we wish to share in His glory as He intended. If not, then we are all just going through meaningful motions.

How do we believe a piece of bread can be transformed into the body and blood of Christ, but we don’t believe that we, who like the Son, were made in God’s image, are transformed through Communion with Him? Every time we take Holy Communion we are transformed by it; if not then it is just a momentary thrill and as soon as it loses its form its power is gone.

Christ told us to “be transformed.”
Rom 12:2-5:

Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect. For by the grace given to me I tell everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than one ought to think, but to think soberly, each according to the measure of faith that God has apportioned. For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ and individually parts of one another.

We are ONE BODY in Christ. If we share Christ’s body and He is God, then how can we not be gods?
2 Cor 3:14-18:

Rather, their thoughts were rendered dull, for to this present day the same veil remains unlifted when they read the old covenant, because through Christ it is taken away. To this day, in fact, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts, but whenever a person turns to the Lord the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. All of us, gazing with unveiled face on the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord who is the Spirit.

This veil is probably why they accused Jesus of blaspheming by saying He was a son of God and tried to stone him. Remember what Jesus answered?
John 10:34-36:

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside, can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

If the word of God came to us, then we are Gods.

Whether we believe in sola scriptura or in the magisterium, I think we can take off our veils and gaze on the loving God with a full understanding of who we are. Otherwise we are just going through a bunch of motions hoping to be good servants of God and receive a slave’s reward. Jesus called us brothers, as did Paul. Let us not be afraid to speak boldly of the truth.

Alan

 

[JOE_OBERR]

petra:

I’ve had a question in the queue of the Ask an Apologist forum for about a week, and it still hasn’t shown up. While I’m waiting for an authoritative answer, I thought I’d post it here, as well.

I’m a fairly new Catholic, so forgive my ignorance, but is the Catechism intended to be inerrant? It’s my understanding that Sacred Tradition is the oral teachings of the apostles, handed down to us. These oral teachings . . . did they eventually get written down? Is this the Catechism? Is the Catechism the embodiment of Sacred Tradition?

I have found the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be a beautiful and thorough treatment of every doctrine central to the Christian faith. However, there is one part that is very troubling to me. CCC 460 contains the statement, “For the son of God became man so that we might become God.” I understand the concept of being a partaker of God’s divine nature: becoming Christ-like or God-like to the extent that we surrender ourselves to His will and become holy. But there should be no confusion between the Creator and his creation. There should be no confusion between our own personage and God’s personage. We don’t become Divine in the Mormon or New Age sense. (I actually became aware of this section in the CCC from a Mormon. He thinks CCC 460 is great, because that is what Mormonism teaches!) Are Catholics to treat the passage as an error, or are we obligated to believe this?

There is another current thread dealing with problematic wording in the Catechism. While there are some passages of scripture that are difficult to interpret, the meaning of most of scripture is transparent and understandable. It would seem that the Catechism would provide the opportunity to clarify Scripture passages that may be confusing. But in this instance, at best, it is introducing confusion and, at worst, is promoting a doctrine contrary to the Bible (that we can become God).

Thoughts anyone?

Yes, the teachings within the CCC are inerrant as are any Church teachings. Teachings come from God through the Church. As God does not change neither, therefore, do His teachings.

As such we have to believe the teachings contained in the CCC. Just as we have to believe anything else the Church has taught infallibly through the centuries. If we don’t believe even one teaching, for whatever reason (a common one is not understanding a particular teaching sufficiently), then we are separating ourselves from God’s body, the Church, as we are in effect saying that I know more than God or that I don’t have to believe what God says.

We should always attempt to understand the rationale behind a Church teaching, but even if the attempt falls short, that does not justify rejecting the teaching. As Jesus said in Lk 6, “he who hears you hears me”. We have to believe all of the teachings as God gives them to us for our own benefit as His teachings lead to peace and good order in society.

There are some disciplinary items in the CCC such as the precepts of the Church (2041). Since these are matters of discipline one does not have to believe them but rather obey them. They can change as they are man-made laws of the Church. Yet they are binding as Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. When the pope binds it is the same as Jesus himself doing the binding as Jesus delegated His own authority to the head of the Church.

Belief in all of the Church’s teachings and obeying all disciplinary matters are easy ways for God to judge whether we really love Him or not. “You are my friends if you do what I tell you” (Last supper discourse in John’s gospel). Pride always tempts us to reject Church teachings as we don’t like to have anyone tell us what to do or think.

Just like Adam.

Joe