Non-fallible teachings: any examples?

[Rau]

…Is there a sure-fire internal mechanism that makes one infallibly competent in recognizing if this sin he’s committed is a mortal sin… If every Catholic who has ever lived was not able to know for a fact, infallibly whether he was in a state of grace or not, then hell is not, cannot be freely chosen.

This idea of “choosing hell” seems highly artificial… Choosing to commit a grave evil is a prima facie case of serious sin. Why do we need to know if our culpability is lessened or not?

We are asked to strive to do the right thing, and to seek forgiveness if we fail. The reality is that one cannot infallibly know the state (shade, if you will) of one’s soul - and so what? We have the means to make good on our transgressions, formally if we have transgressed in grave matters (and despite being uncertain as to degree of culpability) and by other means. Infallible certainty as to our culpability** is not required **(nor available).

 

[1neophyte]

I know it’s probably irritating to those who wish this thread would have stayed on its original topic, but I find this exchange absolutely fascinating. We have a person who is completely stranded and settled into a position of utter despair, in desperate need of healing (let’s use a camel as an indicator of the size of his problem), and then we have some other people who proudly wear the title of “Catholic” enthusiastically engaging him in a discussion that doesn’t amount to much more than copying and pasting Catechism passages and spouting incoherent legalese with relevance the size of a gnat. Can we honestly say with a straight face that this is the Church that Jesus started 2,000 years ago? Is this the “revolution of tenderness” called for by our current pope? Or the “New Evangelization” called for by a recent pope?

Is it any wonder that there are so many studies showing that people are leaving in droves? Or to relate it back to the thread, is it any wonder people have to question which Church teachings are actually infallible (i.e. worth paying attention to) when so much time and effort is spent on these questions whose ultimate answer is “Well, no one can really know the actual state of his/her soul, and we can’t really know what God really thinks of us, but let me do my religious duty and quote the Catechism for you.”

What a disaster.

 

[Rau]

I know it’s probably irritating to those who wish this thread would have stayed on its original topic, but I find this exchange absolutely fascinating. We have a person who is completely stranded and settled into a position of utter despair, in desperate need of healing (let’s use a camel as an indicator of the size of his problem), and then we have some other people who proudly wear the title of “Catholic” enthusiastically engaging him in a discussion that doesn’t amount to much more than copying and pasting Catechism passages and spouting incoherent legalese with relevance the size of a gnat. Can we honestly say with a straight face that this is the Church that Jesus started 2,000 years ago? Is this the “revolution of tenderness” called for by our current pope? Or the “New Evangelization” called for by a recent pope?

Is it any wonder that there are so many studies showing that people are leaving in droves? Or to relate it back to the thread, is it any wonder people have to question which Church teachings are actually infallible (i.e. worth paying attention to) when so much time and effort is spent on these questions whose ultimate answer is “Well, no one can really know the actual state of his/her soul, and we can’t really know what God really thinks of us, but let me do my religious duty and quote the Catechism for you.”

What a disaster.

You are welcome to offer your answers to the questions posed on this thread. You are welcome to share your view on what God expects of us, and your view of his justice. You are welcome to offer some healing words to the other poster you describe as “settled into a position of utter despair”. But spare us your commentary on the value or otherwise of the contributions of other (“Catholic”) posters.

 

[fladreamer]

While grave matter is objectively identifiable, “full knowledge” and “deliberate consent” are subjective. As described earlier in a post directed to 1neophyte:

*ccc1861: “…although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.” *Now - why would that be so? Simply - it is wrong to believe that “doing (objectively) the crime” implies one will “do the time”. And further insight is found in the notion of culpability, addressed here (in the masturbation context):

ccc2352: "To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability"

**(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. It’s verbatim.

''Come on now, lets deal with the issue here. The fact is there was once a requirement that one must not eat meat on Fridays. And those who were “disobedient” to this requirement was commiting a mortal sin. Right?

Now today this isn’t required except during the Lenten season. For the rest of the year, a person doesn’t have to worry about being “disobedient” over this requirement, even if they wanted to.

So how is it fair to those back then that might of died and gone to hell over eating meat on any given Friday?’’

Is a mortal sin absolutely objectively grave? Looks like a moving goalpost to me. If the Church has the truth, is the truth, then one has to conclude that truth changes.

When extra Ecclesiam nulla salus first came up, how free were the Catholics to dissent? Moving goalpost.

 

[Tomdstone]

So how is it fair to those back then that might of died and gone to hell over eating meat on any given Friday?’’

Is a mortal sin absolutely objectively grave? Looks like a moving goalpost to me. If the Church has the truth, is the truth, then one has to conclude that truth changes.

When extra Ecclesiam nulla salus first came up, how free were the Catholics to dissent? Moving goalpost.

It looks like disobedience to a non-fallible teaching can be a mortal sin. And there is the question of development of infallible teachings such as extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

[1neophyte]

It looks like disobedience to a non-fallible teaching can be a mortal sin. And there is the question of development of infallible teachings such as extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

Can you clarify what you’re trying to say?

 

[Vico]

I know it’s probably irritating to those who wish this thread would have stayed on its original topic, but I find this exchange absolutely fascinating. We have a person who is completely stranded and settled into a position of utter despair, in desperate need of healing (let’s use a camel as an indicator of the size of his problem), and then we have some other people who proudly wear the title of “Catholic” enthusiastically engaging him in a discussion that doesn’t amount to much more than copying and pasting Catechism passages and spouting incoherent legalese with relevance the size of a gnat. Can we honestly say with a straight face that this is the Church that Jesus started 2,000 years ago? Is this the “revolution of tenderness” called for by our current pope? Or the “New Evangelization” called for by a recent pope?

Is it any wonder that there are so many studies showing that people are leaving in droves? Or to relate it back to the thread, is it any wonder people have to question which Church teachings are actually infallible (i.e. worth paying attention to) when so much time and effort is spent on these questions whose ultimate answer is “Well, no one can really know the actual state of his/her soul, and we can’t really know what God really thinks of us, but let me do my religious duty and quote the Catechism for you.”

What a disaster.

Jesus Christ said that relatively few will find life. If one does not receive the gift it will not sanctify.

Matthew 7
13 Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. 14 How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!

1 John 5:18-19
18 We know that whosoever is born of God, sinneth not: but the generation of God preserveth him, and the wicked one toucheth him not. 19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world is seated in wickedness.

 

[1neophyte]

Jesus Christ said that relatively few will find life. If one does not receive the gift it will not sanctify.

Matthew 7
13 Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. 14 How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!

1 John 5:18-19
18 We know that whosoever is born of God, sinneth not: but the generation of God preserveth him, and the wicked one toucheth him not. 19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world is seated in wickedness.

Oh, now I see.

 

[fladreamer]

I know it’s probably irritating to those who wish this thread would have stayed on its original topic, but I find this exchange absolutely fascinating. We have a person who is completely stranded and settled into a position of utter despair, in desperate need of healing (let’s use a camel as an indicator of the size of his problem), and then we have some other people who proudly wear the title of “Catholic” enthusiastically engaging him in a discussion that doesn’t amount to much more than copying and pasting Catechism passages and spouting incoherent legalese with relevance the size of a gnat. Can we honestly say with a straight face that this is the Church that Jesus started 2,000 years ago? Is this the “revolution of tenderness” called for by our current pope? Or the “New Evangelization” called for by a recent pope?

Is it any wonder that there are so many studies showing that people are leaving in droves? Or to relate it back to the thread, is it any wonder people have to question which Church teachings are actually infallible (i.e. worth paying attention to) when so much time and effort is spent on these questions whose ultimate answer is “Well, no one can really know the actual state of his/her soul, and we can’t really know what God really thinks of us, but let me do my religious duty and quote the Catechism for you.”

What a disaster.

I understand the non stop succession of popes from St Peter, but that may be the only thing linking the two Churches.

I hate Anthony Bourdain, how he likes the sound of his own voice, his humor, his whole character? The way his French name is pronounced is extremely irritating to anyone familiar with French. But one day I was absent-mindedly watching one program where he was in Rome. He had a convo with a butcher or a restaurateur, can’t recall. The Roman guy told him how the Romans would typically get the worst meat cuts while the Vatican would get the best! As far as I know Jesus didn’t sleep in five stars hotels, neither did he enjoy filet mignon and foie gras and other delicacies. So your comments are quite valid.

‘‘When the son of man returns, will he find any faith’’. What will he say about the Church, Church leaders etc.? Something is rotten in the Vatican.

Last point, I was forced to go to Sunday mass for 15-16 years. I recall the sermons were empty, not spirit-filled, but boring, monotone, lyrical, uninspired mini-speeches. Lyrical, meaning ‘‘let us all water the garden of our virtues’’, ‘‘let us add wood to the fire of our charity’’ and other childlike poetry. Whenever the bible passage that was read was about the end-times, the sermon was invariably NOT about the end-times but about some platitude about keeping charity alive. I think the Church is officially moribund.

 

[fladreamer]

It looks like disobedience to a non-fallible teaching can be a mortal sin. And there is the question of development of infallible teachings such as extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

There is a whole lot of goalposts moving going on. I believe your first statement to be accurate. Meat consumption on Friday would be an example. I also read in another thread that eat consumption on Fridays is a geographically-dependent mortal sin for Catholics. The Church* is *the truth. Best of luck finding it.

If if a pope says in an encyclical that Islam is a religion of peace and its followers should be seen as cousins. What is the consequence, if any, for a Catholic to energetically dissent? There are fascist elements within the Church. There were even way before Mussolini.

 

[goout]

There is a whole lot of goalposts moving going on. I believe your first statement to be accurate. Meat consumption on Friday would be an example. I also read in another thread that eat consumption on Fridays is a geographically-dependent mortal sin for Catholics. The Church* is *the truth. Best of luck finding it.

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.

 

[Vico]

There is a whole lot of goalposts moving going on. I believe your first statement to be accurate. Meat consumption on Friday would be an example. I also read in another thread that eat consumption on Fridays is a geographically-dependent mortal sin for Catholics. The Church* is *the truth. Best of luck finding it.

CIC Canon 1251 Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless (nisi) they are solemnities …

 

[1neophyte]

I understand the non stop succession of popes from St Peter, but that may be the only thing linking the two Churches.

I hate Anthony Bourdain, how he likes the sound of his own voice, his humor, his whole character? The way his French name is pronounced is extremely irritating to anyone familiar with French. But one day I was absent-mindedly watching one program where he was in Rome. He had a convo with a butcher or a restaurateur, can’t recall. The Roman guy told him how the Romans would typically get the worst meat cuts while the Vatican would get the best! As far as I know Jesus didn’t sleep in five stars hotels, neither did he enjoy filet mignon and foie gras and other delicacies. So your comments are quite valid.

‘‘When the son of man returns, will he find any faith’’. What will he say about the Church, Church leaders etc.? Something is rotten in the Vatican.

Last point, I was forced to go to Sunday mass for 15-16 years. I recall the sermons were empty, not spirit-filled, but boring, monotone, lyrical, uninspired mini-speeches. Lyrical, meaning ‘‘let us all water the garden of our virtues’’, ‘‘let us add wood to the fire of our charity’’ and other childlike poetry. Whenever the bible passage that was read was about the end-times, the sermon was invariably NOT about the end-times but about some platitude about keeping charity alive. I think the Church is officially moribund.

Can I assume those were the first 15-16 years of your life? You have an awful lot of knowledge and understanding for someone who gave up at age 15 or 16. Does it really just come from a general interest and curiosity in religion? Do you have that same level of expertise about Islam? Why would you put in the time and work to build such an extensive knowledge of a faith that you think is so flawed?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Protest all you want, but between the lines of every post you’ve made in this thread is a wellspring of hope that God actually does love you. You are poor in spirit, which makes you blessed. You’ll see. Just watch.

 

[1neophyte]

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.

That is all very nice, but do you understand the point he is trying to make?

 

[fladreamer]

CIC Canon 1251 Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless (nisi) they are solemnities …

Under pains of mortal sin? Poll 100 Catholics, see what the responses are. The Church is a tower of confusion.

 

[fladreamer]

That is all very nice, but do you understand the point he is trying to make?

Politicians always have a ‘‘cassette’’ handy, they’ll press ‘‘play’’ and you’ll hear prepared sentences that appear to answer the question but which do not. Politicians are not only found in politics. Catholicism is very much like politics nowadays. You have a party line that you need to parrot even if you don’t agree with all the elements of it. If you disagree, you lose your membership, become a back-bencher or, worst-case scenario, are kicked out of the party. Since the party claims to be the sole recipient of truth and the only way to reach heaven, one may be hesitant to not stick to the party line.

There is, possibly, a ‘‘God-shaped hole’’, the Church is probably not a credible, valid institution through which to fill that hole. But since only the Church can loosen or bind, is sin repented of through perfect contrition still forgiven by God if it’s not confessed to a priest? The Church seems to be the sole recipient of temporal and eternal power. Makes one wonder…I would think the creator of such a vast universe would be grand, sublime, powerful, generous, liberal, full of life, vibrant, someone that everybody would want to come near. The Church’s God is petty, meticulous, OCDish, score-keeping, very mean if contradicted. God either has a terrible (x100) PR team or is really as bad as I think he is (based on the Church).

 

[Vico]

Under pains of mortal sin? Poll 100 Catholics, see what the responses are. The Church is a tower of confusion.

It is grave matter to not observe the penitential days when prescribed, but the way to do so varies, we must all do some form of penance by divine law. It was described by Pope Paul VI in 1966:

Therefore, the Church, while preserving—where it can be more readily observed—the custom (observed for many centuries with canonical norms) of practicing penitence also through abstinence from meat and fasting, intends to ratify with its prescriptions other forms of penitence as well, provided that it seems opportune to episcopal conferences to replace the observance of fast and abstinence with exercises of prayer and works of charity.

In order that all the faithful, however, may be united in a common celebration of penitence, the Apostolic See intends to establish certain penitential days and seasons(63) chosen among those which in the course of the liturgical year are closer to the paschal mystery of Christ(64) or might be required by the special needs of the ecclesial community.(65)

Therefore, the following is declared and established:

I. 1. By divine law all the faithful are required to do penance.

1. The prescriptions of ecclesiastical law regarding penitence are totally reorganized according to the following norms:

II. 1. The time of Lent preserves its penitential character. The days of penitence to be observed under obligation throughout the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday, that is to say the first days of “Grande Quaresima” (Great Lent), according to the diversity of the rites. Their substantial observance binds gravely.

1. Apart from the faculties referred to in VI and VIII regarding the manner of fulfilling the precept of penitence on such days, abstinence is to be observed on every Friday which does not fall on a day of obligation, while abstinence and fast is to be observed on Ash Wednesday or, according to the various practices of the rites, on the first day of “Grande Quaresima” (Great Lent) and on Good Friday.

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19660217_paenitemini.html

 

[1neophyte]

Politicians always have a ‘‘cassette’’ handy, they’ll press ‘‘play’’ and you’ll hear prepared sentences that appear to answer the question but which do not. Politicians are not only found in politics. Catholicism is very much like politics nowadays. You have a party line that you need to parrot even if you don’t agree with all the elements of it. If you disagree, you lose your membership, become a back-bencher or, worst-case scenario, are kicked out of the party. Since the party claims to be the sole recipient of truth and the only way to reach heaven, one may be hesitant to not stick to the party line.

There is, possibly, a ‘‘God-shaped hole’’, the Church is probably not a credible, valid institution through which to fill that hole. But since only the Church can loosen or bind, is sin repented of through perfect contrition still forgiven by God if it’s not confessed to a priest? The Church seems to be the sole recipient of temporal and eternal power. Makes one wonder…

I once had a friend/co-worker who was a Jehovah’s Witness. We would get into fairly intense discussions about this or that doctrine, and I was always so amazed and frustrated how quickly she could turn from an intelligent well-spoken person into a dead-eyed robot who held fast to ideas that made absolutely no sense whatsoever, and spit them out in a monotone, emotionless voice. It’s even more frustrating now that I’m much older and I see some Catholics doing the same.

BUT… Why should this cause us to conclude that they must be right? They can’t change what C.S. Lewis calls “mere” Christianity.

 

[1neophyte]

God either has a terrible (x100) PR team or is really as bad as I think he is (based on the Church).

It’s the first one. I promise.

 

[goout]

That is all very nice, but do you understand the point he is trying to make?

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”:

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.

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