Non-fallible teachings: any examples?

[1neophyte]

Right. He’s accusing the Church (in a fairly offensive manner, although might not be intentional) of moving the goalposts in it’s continuous proclamation of the Gospel.

To which I responded with this, addressing the accusation that the Church is “moving the goalpost”:

I’d just like to have dialogue with the poster on the issue, if that is possible.

You’re talking about seeds and trees. A dialogue about the issue would be wonderful. The issue is that less than a hundred years ago, the Church bound people to abstain from meat in every Friday of the year under pain of mortal sin. The Church no longer binds this abstinence. Does this mean that Catholics a hundred years ago were subject to eternal damnation if they ate meat on a Friday and died without repenting, while Catholics who are alive today are not subject to the same threat of eternal damnation? It’s a very simple question.

By the way, Jesus endured much more offensive treatment than questions about changing doctrines, and He never once complained about “offensiveness.” There is no need to be so sensitive.

 

[fladreamer]

The Church is organic. What does that mean?
It is living. It is growing and developing.
The Church is not a book of rules, it is incorporation into Jesus Christ.
We believe Jesus Christ lives, and so the Church is a living community of believers, journeying, growing, developing.
Just like a seed is forever part of a tree. The tree is not merely a seed anymore, and that seed is not separable from the tree, even though it seems the seed is no longer there.

If that premise is not accepted nothing else can make sense.

Okay. Don’t claim to have the fullness of truth, though. Don’t threaten with anathemas and hell-fire if one does not agree with what you propose as truth. Was the author who came up with Ecclesiam nulla salus even aware that he was simply proposing a truth or did he think he was declaring an eternal, unchangeable, immutable, infallible truth?

 

[goout]

Okay. Don’t claim to have the fullness of truth, though. Don’t threaten with anathemas and hell-fire if one does not agree with what you propose as truth. Was the author who came up with Ecclesiam nulla salus even aware that he was simply proposing a truth or did he think he was declaring an eternal, unchangeable, immutable, infallible truth?

Timeout:
Where do you get threat from my post.
That seems unfair that you find threat where there is none.

I’m not even talking specifically about ENS.
What do you think about this:

Originally Posted by goout View Post
The Church is organic. What does that mean?
It is living. It is growing and developing.
The Church is not a book of rules, it is incorporation into Jesus Christ.
We believe Jesus Christ lives, and so the Church is a living community of believers, journeying, growing, developing.
Just like a seed is forever part of a tree. The tree is not merely a seed anymore, and that seed is not separable from the tree, even though it seems the seed is no longer there.

If that premise is not accepted nothing else can make sense.

Can we just have a dialogue on this?

 

[fladreamer]

You’re talking about seeds and trees. A dialogue about the issue would be wonderful. The issue is that less than a hundred years ago, the Church bound people to abstain from meat in every Friday of the year under pain of mortal sin. The Church no longer binds this abstinence. Does this mean that Catholics a hundred years ago were subject to eternal damnation if they ate meat on a Friday and died without repenting, while Catholics who are alive today are not subject to the same threat of eternal damnation? It’s a very simple question.

By the way, Jesus endured much more offensive treatment than questions about changing doctrines, and He never once complained about “offensiveness.” There is no need to be so sensitive.

Someone with your attitude is quite rare. I’ve met (and read) many, many angry, close-minded, dogmatic apologists. What is your take on the Church, its evolution, how binding what it says is. etc. Sorry for being all over the place, but i’ve often thought that if 1/3 (meaning not just a few) of the angelic creation rebelled, including the summit of God’s creation (Lucifer) , that there may have been something to rebel about other than pride. Pride seems like a convenient explanation. Things oftentimes aren’t as simple as being explained by one factor. That one factor (pride) also (conveniently) paints the rebel in a wholly negative light. Also, given Lucifer’s superior intellect, did he understand or see something about/in God that isn’t so praiseworthy?

In closing, what makes you think God’s PR team isn’t doing such a great job and that God is not faithfully reflected in the Church?

 

[fladreamer]

Timeout:
Where do you get threat from my post.
That seems unfair that you find threat where there is none.

I’m not even talking specifically about ENS.
What do you think about this:

Can we just have a dialogue on this?

‘‘Don’t threaten’’ = addressing the Church. Perhaps the Church isn’t aware that it doesn’t possess the fullness of the truth, but some dim version of truth which may or may not change, evolve overtime. Quote me anyone of authority in the Church in the last 2 millenia who said what I’ve just said. One. You don’t even need to negociate as Abraham did. Just one.

If need be, I’ll reply later.

 

[goout]

Can we just have a dialogue on this?

‘‘Don’t threaten’’ = addressing the Church. Perhaps the Church isn’t aware that it doesn’t possess the fullness of the truth,but some dim version of truth which may or may not change, evolve overtime. Quote me anyone of auhtority in the Church in the last 2 millenia who said what I’ve just said. One.

Because a seed is no longer part of the tree that grew from it?
You insist on change as rupture.

The reason I use an analogy is that the assertion does not work, and that reality is observable in your very being.

You are you. You change. The fact that you change, grow, and develop does mean that in times past you were someone else.
Right?

The Church is not merely a book of doctrine, it is a living incorporation into Christ. So yea, it develops in expression, understanding. Still the same Christ.

 

[1neophyte]

Someone with your attitude is quite rare. I’ve met (and read) many, many angry, close-minded, dogmatic apologists. What is your take on the Church, its evolution, how binding what it says is. etc. Sorry for being all over the place, but i’ve often thought that if 1/3 (meaning not just a few) of the angelic creation rebelled, including the summit of God’s creation (Lucifer) , that there may have been something to rebel about other than pride. Pride seems like a convenient explanation. Things oftentimes aren’t as simple as being explained by one factor. That one factor (pride) also (conveniently) paints the rebel in a wholly negative light. Also, given Lucifer’s superior intellect, did he understand or see something about/in God that isn’t so praiseworthy?

In closing, what makes you think God’s PR team isn’t doing such a great job and that God is not faithfully reflected in the Church?

I’ll give you a longer answer later today or tomorrow in a PM, but with regard to the rebellion of Lucifer and the other fallen angels, I’m absolutely convinced that they rebelled because they were given a glimpse of God’s scandalous plan to redeem humanity. The Hebrew word “Hesed”, which has no worthy English translation (“loving-kindness” doesn’t even begin to do justice to it), is used over and over in the Old Testament to describe who God is and what He desires of us. It is a grace that is so undeserved that it rises to the level of what we might consider unjust. I think that those angels saw how miserably disobedient and rebellious we all would be, and also how God planned to respond to our disobedience with even more love. They wanted no part of having to serve such miserable creatures, and basically said to God, “Okay, you want rebellion? Watch this.”

As far as the evolution of the Church, I’m convinced that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, but I don’t think that means any Catholic (ordained or otherwise) can be fully trusted to express the truth perfectly. Unfortunately, Church history is marked by one blunder after another. But at the same time, that’s what I think it’s so great about it. It forces us to trust in the God we cannot see. I think the four gospels paint an excellent picture of who God is, and also how He relates to those who would have the truth be reduced to words on a page.

I think most people ask all the wrong questions and take consolation in all the wrong answers. Take the Church’s teachings on Mary, and the lengths people go to defend them. Frankly, as much as she reflects the greatness of God, I’m far more impressed with St. Maria Goretti. Mary considered herself a mere slave of God, and her “yes” was simply giving God His due. What Maria Goretti did was far more extraordinary in my eyes, and reflected Jesus even MORE. This probably hits some ears as offensive heresy, but Mary watched Jesus’ crucifixion and death, so I don’t think she is as fragile as some would portray her, and I would bet that she would agree with me.

To sum it up, I’m very suspicious of anyone whose greatest trust is in the Catechism published in 1992.

 

[1neophyte]

In closing, what makes you think God’s PR team isn’t doing such a great job and that God is not faithfully reflected in the Church?

I do think God is faithfully reflected in the Church, both in the sacraments and in countless undocumented moments of grace that happen each day. But…there is also a more sinister element at work that is driven more by business concerns than by proclaiming the gospel. That’s not to say that business concerns are necessarily wrong, but things are certainly out of balance in many places. For example, the Church’s teaching that missing mass on Sunday constitutes a mortal sin reveals a tone deafness no different than the one manifested by those who complained about Jesus healing on the Sabbath. That doesn’t mean I don’t think everyone should be attending mass every Sunday…everyone absolutely should. But using fear as a motivating factor is nearly unforgivable, and I have a strong suspicion that it is driven by a concern about steady and consistent weekly collections more than concern about people’s souls.

It’s wrong to make a blanket statement that God’s “PR team” is doing a bad job, but it’s also wrong to say that “they” are doing an excellent job and are above criticism. Because really, who is “they”? Spend some time observing a hospice nurse at work, and you will see the gospel in action. That doesn’t mean we have a perfect medical care system. There are amazing priests around the world right at this moment selflessly celebrating masses and hearing confessions, faithfully serving and reflecting God. But that doesn’t mean we have a perfect Church. We have a choice between cynically meditating on everything that is wrong with the Church, or trusting in the words that God spoke to St. Paul…“My grace is sufficient.”

I’ll say it yet again. You can wear the misotheist badge all you want, but it’s still abundantly clear that you are a person of good will, and we need you. Your absence is a fracture in the Mystical Body of Christ, and no one can “pinch hit” for you. Come home.

dramatic music

 

[Rau]

**(Bolded part)**Not always.I think the Church used to teach that eating meat on any given Friday was a mortal sin. If the Church is God’s mouthpiece, then if eating meat on any Friday 100 years ago killed the sanctifying grace in a soul, then why doesn’t it do it nowadays? I don’t know how to porperly copy and paste a post from another thread dealing with eating meat and mortal sin…

The thread to which you refer included a full explanation of this.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=200299

The Church did not teach that “Eating Meat on a Friday” is - in itself - sinful! The Church **instructed **the people that they must do Penance on Fridays and prescribed abstinence as the means. The unchanging divine moral law is not involved here. The issue is obedience to the Church.

Friday has been a day of penance since the beginning of the Church (a recollection of the events of Good Friday). The Church at various times - and in various places - has prescribed how that penance is to be performed through what is called a “commandment of the church” or a “precept of the Church”. To deliberately reject any of the precepts is a disobedience.

What are the precepts of the Church? They have varied over history, but are currently:
1.You shall attend Mass on Sundays and on holy days of obligation.
2.You shall confess your sins at least once a year.
3.You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least once during the Easter season. 4.You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church.
5.You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church.

Deliberately violating a precept of the Church is a grave sin, and with all the other relevant provisos, may constitute a mortal sin. But the evil never lay in the act of eating meat - it only ever lay in wilfully choosing to defy a rule made with God-given authority.

So, in times past, the Church prescribed that the Friday penance be observed by abstaining from meat and subsequently terminated that obligation or allowed other penances to be substituted by national Bishops Conferences (I think this was 1966 in the US). Is there some great injustice in this? I don’t think so. A great many other rules in our life change and we are expected to comply with the law as it is at the time.

USCCB Pastoral Statement on Penance and Abstinence

 

[Rau]

It looks like disobedience to a non-fallible teaching can be a mortal sin.

The instruction - precept of the Church - concerning penance by abstaining from meat is not a “teaching” at all. Nothing at all is taught about the inherent good/evil in eating meat on any day.

The Precept is a rule - an instruction. To wilfully refuse to obey the precepts of the Church is what is wrong.

 

[Tomdstone]

The instruction - precept of the Church - concerning penance by abstaining from meat is not a “teaching” at all. Nothing at all is taught about the inherent good/evil in eating meat on any day.

The Precept is a rule - an instruction. To wilfully refuse to obey the precepts of the Church is what is wrong.

So, if you are Catholic and you know what the rules are, if you are at a baseball game and out of politeness to your Protestant friends, take a bite of a hot dog offered to you on a day of abstinence, and you do not repent but have fulfilled all the other conditions for a mortal sin, then you are condemned to eternal fire in hell, forever and ever, but if you are a Protestant and ate five steaks on the same day you will not have to worry about that sending you to hell? Even though you have led a good life so far, doing a lot of voluntary charitable work, then this one slip up will condemn you to be tormented and punished forever?

 

[1neophyte]

So, if you are Catholic and you know what the rules are, if you are at a baseball game and out of politeness to your Protestant friends, take a bite of a hot dog offered to you on a day of abstinence, and you do not repent but have fulfilled all the other conditions for a mortal sin, then you are condemned to eternal fire in hell, forever and ever, but if you are a Protestant and ate five steaks on the same day you will not have to worry about that sending you to hell? Even though you have led a good life so far, doing a lot of voluntary charitable work, then this one slip up will condemn you to be tormented and punished forever?

You have to understand… the Church is like a seed, and now that it is a tree, the seed is still there, and yet it isn’t there anymore, because it’s a tree. Yet the seed remains …or something.

 

[Vico]

So, if you are Catholic and you know what the rules are, if you are at a baseball game and out of politeness to your Protestant friends, take a bite of a hot dog offered to you on a day of abstinence, and you do not repent but have fulfilled all the other conditions for a mortal sin, then you are condemned to eternal fire in hell, forever and ever, but if you are a Protestant and ate five steaks on the same day you will not have to worry about that sending you to hell? Even though you have led a good life so far, doing a lot of voluntary charitable work, then this one slip up will condemn you to be tormented and punished forever?

Final penitence (salvation), not preponderance of good, is the determining factor. If there is final penitence, then the amount of good will determine the degree of merit in heaven. If there is final (name removed by moderator)enitence (damnation), then the amount of evil will determine the degree of suffering in hell.

So if one mortally sins and dies without repentance, then that is a final rejection of God and heaven.

 

[1neophyte]

Final penitence (salvation), not preponderance of good, is the determining factor. If there is final penitence, then the amount of good will determine the degree of merit in heaven. If there is final (name removed by moderator)enitence (damnation), then the amount of evil will determine the degree of suffering in hell.

So if one mortally sins and dies without repentance, then that is a final rejection of God and heaven.

Well that settles that!

 

[Rau]

So, if you are Catholic and you know what the rules are, if you are at a baseball game and out of politeness to your Protestant friends, take a bite of a hot dog offered to you on a day of abstinence, and you do not repent but have fulfilled all the other conditions for a mortal sin, then you are condemned to eternal fire in hell, forever and ever, but if you are a Protestant and ate five steaks on the same day you will not have to worry about that sending you to hell? Even though you have led a good life so far, doing a lot of voluntary charitable work, then this one slip up will condemn you to be tormented and punished forever?

Now you’re just being silly Tom!

 

[goout]

Growth in understanding the faith

94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:

• “through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts”;57 it is in particular “theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth”.58

• “from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience”,59 the sacred Scriptures "grow with the one who reads them."60

• “from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.61

95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."62

 

[Vico]

The thread to which you refer included a full explanation of this.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=200299

The Church did not teach that “Eating Meat on a Friday” is - in itself - sinful! The Church **instructed **the people that they must do Penance on Fridays and prescribed abstinence as the means. The unchanging divine moral law is not involved here. The issue is obedience to the Church.

Friday has been a day of penance since the beginning of the Church (a recollection of the events of Good Friday). The Church at various times - and in various places - has prescribed how that penance is to be performed through what is called a “commandment of the church” or a “precept of the Church”. To deliberately reject any of the precepts is a disobedience.

What are the precepts of the Church? They have varied over history, but are currently:
1.You shall attend Mass on Sundays and on holy days of obligation.
2.You shall confess your sins at least once a year.
3.You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least once during the Easter season.
4.You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church.
5.You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church.

Deliberately violating a precept of the Church is a grave sin, and with all the other relevant provisos, may constitute a mortal sin. But the evil never lay in the act of eating meat - it only ever lay in wilfully choosing to defy a rule made with God-given authority.

So, in times past, the Church prescribed that the Friday penance be observed by abstaining from meat and subsequently terminated that obligation or allowed other penances to be substituted by national Bishops Conferences (I think this was 1966 in the US). Is there some great injustice in this? I don’t think so. A great many other rules in our life change and we are expected to comply with the law as it is at the time.

USCCB Pastoral Statement on Penance and Abstinence

Two more precepts are listed traditionally as precepts (also mentioned in the Catechism but not under precepts).

6, To obey the laws of the Church concerning Matrimony.
7. To participate in the Church’s mission of Evangelization of Souls. (This is called the Missionary Spirit of the Church.)

For eastern Catholics, per canon law, there is no binding Easter duty (confession and communion reception) but serious sins should be confessed as soon as possible (not binding). For the Byzantine Catholics it is traditional (but not binding) to confess at least once during the four penitential periods:

• St Phillip’s Fast (prior to Christmas),
• Great Lent (prior to Easter),
• Apostle’s Fast (Prior to June 29 Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul),
• Dormition Fast (prior to Aug 15 Feast of the Dormition , i.e., Latin Assumption).

 

[Tomdstone]

Now you’re just being silly Tom!

Mortal sin and Hell are serious business. This is just a thought that crossed my mind, but if someone were to call mortal sin silly, then would it be suspected that he may not have the Catholic faith?

 

[fladreamer]

Mortal sin and Hell are serious business. This is just a thought that crossed my mind, but if someone were to call mortal sin silly, then would it be suspected that he may not have the Catholic faith?

What do you think of God who sends people to eternal torment and suffering for trifling reasons? That’s incredibly callous. Thing is, and it sucks, once conceived, once ensouled (in the womb) you are forever stuck with God, one way or the other. I’ve always tried to escape oppression, to run from it, but the real, relentless oppression comes from above. I think you and I are of the same mind.

Have you ever thought about the fact that we could have had a world as beautiful and fascinating as the one we have, and have a loving, sane, good God instead of the lame one we have? Or better yet, have no God at all. It’s just extremely bad luck that the only uncreated, unborn being there is one that demands obedience, servility, and sends people to eternal misery without so much as an afterthought of what a particular soul will have to endure. A lot of people find God extremely repulsive, and I don’t think it’s necessarily because they don’t get it, but maybe because they do get it. Children of insane, cruel, vindictive tyrants probably think their dads are great people inasmuch as they treat their children well. One of the great tragedies is that God will never be repaid for making many of us needlessly suffer in this life and the next. God is heartless, Tomdstone. David Reimer, Natascha Kampusch, all the people whom God could easily heal and comfort who have committed suicide today. the millions hopeless men who will die and who will receive hell as a way to thank them for having endured God-given *****py lives. Sorry we’ve just got the wrong God. Any human with half a heart would do infinitely better than this heartless, silent tyrant.

Neophyte, I gave up on God. Never wanted to be who this joker of a potter created me to be, God took a cry life and shoved it down my throat. Now he wants a big ‘‘thank you’’. The words ‘‘hate’’ and ‘‘God’’ are seared. While others are given social skills, good friends, talents, a good brain to have a rewarding career, I was given shame, a crpy brain, anxiety and depression, adhd, bed wetting until I was 12 ( picture what that does to a boy that age), loneliness etc. When I was around 12, i was playing street hockey with a couple of guys I knew. One started singing a silly song that made others giggle, laugh, or look at each other with knowing smiles. He kept repeating ‘‘Once there was a little ,’’, he used a pun with my first name and a kid with Down’s syndrome. And, thank God, I was the last one to catch on. So that was a double humiliation for me. Didn’t the fact that I was slow to get that the joke was on me validate what they thought? I also failed a year in primary school. And had to wear diapers 2 months shy of being 12 on a schooltrip. Such an ego booster. I also ended up wetting the bed I was sharing with a class mate. i was terrified when I woke up. i’ll spare the years begging to either be killed or be healed, the very real obsessions to kill myself the night before oral presentations because I was terrified of being humiliated again. If I had annihilation to look forward to, I would manage to stifle my hate for God, but knowing that my shame and torment may never end=not happening, ever. JFC

Oh BTW I do believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. I understand God cares a whole lot about that…

 

[Rau]

Mortal sin and Hell are serious business.

But your post was not.