The Perils of Dissent

[The_Augustinian]

I think you’re misinterpreting Galatians, Petra. Paul is addressing the Galatians who were being circumcised according to the Law. He rightly condemns this, but at the same time, he exhorts them to “walk in the spirit,” avoiding the “works of the flesh” including “fornication, uncleannes, immodesty, luxury, idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions…” and so forth. The good Christian remains in the grace of God by obeying His commandments, and the commandments of His Church.

All good works are the fruit of grace. You should never worry in obeying the commandments of God and thus disobeying him because of a “legalistic” mindset. You would be too scrupulous then. “Am I doing this to earn salvation? Or am I doing this as a fruit of the Spirit?” Salvation cannot be earned, and a person outside of God’s grace will quickly fall. But, have no fear when obeying the precepts of God and His Church. Neither God nor the Church create impossible laws and then say “gotcha!” As long as you love God above all things, have no fear at all. You are free.

In Christ,

The Augustinian

 

[jordan]

petra:

I’m trying to learn what the difference is between cooperating with God’s grace and performing the works of the law with the intent to be justified. Cooperating with God’s grace includes being a good Christian, and we are in complete agreement with that. But performing works with the intent of earning salvation (or in the case of the Galatians, earning final salvation) is a mortal sin. (Gal. 5:4.) Two people could perform the same act, one with the former motive and one with the latter motive. The spiritual consequences are as far apart as can be: sanctification and falling from grace. Legalism is the latter.

Petra:

I’m not sure if I understand exactly what you’re getting at. True faith will bear fruit in works. In the letter of James (2: 17) we read “…faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”

The CCC teaches us;

982 There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. “There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest.”

I suggest you read CCC articles 1987-2005 on grace and justification:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6Y.HTM

When you get to the bottom, just hit the next button to keep going.

We show our love for God by striving to keep his commandments. We recall the words with which Augustinian started the thread:

" Whoever listens to you listens to Me. Whoever rejects you rejects Me. And whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me." --Luke 10:16

Works are a sign that our faith is alive, but forgiveness is a free gift of God, a grace. The Church is entrusted by Our Lord as an instrument through which grace is conferred through the sacraments.

I hope this helps, and that you find your answers.

jordan

 

[petra]

The Augustinian:

As long as you love God above all things, have no fear at all. You are free.

Okay, thanks.
The Augustinian:

The Church used to not have repeated penance. So, if you committed grave sin after baptism, you didn’t have much of a choice."

What does this mean? That the Church didn’t allow forgiveness of mortal sins after baptism? What was the time period that this was in effect?

 

[The_Augustinian]

According to Tertullian, writing in the early 2nd century, for grievous sins such as murder and adultery, only one forgiveness in the Sacrament of Penance was allowed. However, this was a discipline rather than a doctrine, as the Church has the power to forgive all sins, a doctrine which Tertullian himself rejected when he became a heretic. This admittedly strict discipline was probably imposed because of the grievousness of the sins themselves. But, what the Church has bound, it can also loose.

In Christ,

The Augustinian

 

[fix]

So if I understand you correctly, there are some issues that are not as serious to disagree about than others. If that is what you are saying, then I agree!

We must accept all the Mother Church teaches. We must accept all doctrines and discipline. We may not agree with all disciplines, but we must obey. Questions are fine. Trying to understand is fine. Dissent is wrong.

But performing works with the intent of earning salvation (or in the case of the Galatians, earning final salvation) is a mortal sin. (Gal. 5:4.)

Where have you read that the Church teaches one earns salvation through works?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

Actually it does differentiate. Your entire post mischaracterizes Christ’s Church. We are not to be minimalists and do the least amount needed, that is not Christian. We are not to follow the law for the law’s sake. We are to love the law because it is given to us by Christ.

Legalism is a false charge. Let me ask you this. When I drive home each night and stiop at all the stop signs, do not run over anyone, do not rob anyone am I being legalistic? No. I am being a good citizen. Keeping the Church laws are being a good Christian.

Dear fix,

I certainly see petra’s point and even agree with it, although the wording may not have been 100% apologist-proof accurate.

As petra stated in an earlier post, the system of rules and teachings of the Church seem to rival, if not exceed, the complexity of Mosaic law. Like the Mosaic law, I submit it is humanly impossible to even know what they all are, much less observe them.

The Church and even those on this forum may differentiate between “dogma,” “doctrine,” “practices,” “teachings,” and whatever else to indicate that there are different severities associated with being skeptical (or even disobeying) different aspects of what the Church defines as “perfection,” in practice it doesn’t feel like it from my position as a skeptical but open-minded truth seeker.

For example, I started using the term “cafeteria Catholic” in reference to myself, because I don’t agree with some of the Church’s teachings, practices, and/or requirements. Perhaps many of the things I hear are matters of personal opinion by local priests or bishops, but when they state them as fact and as if they are binding then I am on my own to second-guess them to find out their severity. Many teachings and practices are inconsistent; for example some bishops publicly excommunicate “pro-choice” politicians and those who vote for them while others renounce the practice. Therefore, just like in Protestant churches, the rules vary depending on the diocese you happen to live in.

There is inconsistency on this very forum, even from the same posters, who excuse the Church’s wavering and inconsistency on Priestly Celibacy, for example, by saying it is a practice and not a teaching and isn’t really important, but then vigorously defend the Church as if they were critically important to our faith. Moreover, here are two direct quotes from other posters on this forum:

1.) In conclusion, all of us must be careful to heed the words of St. Thomas Aquinas: “Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.”

2.) Being a Cafeteria Catholic is not being a Catholic at all!

While I was composing this post, you yourself posted that

“We must accept all the Mother Church teaches. We must accept all doctrines and discipline. We may not agree with all disciplines, but we must obey. Questions are fine. Trying to understand is fine. Dissent is wrong.”

This is scary and oppressive stuff; I used to try to “be perfect” in the eyes of the Church and it led me into a psychotic episode. Now that I have found some degree of peace and freedom, I still love the Church but must speak against practices that I believe divide and scare the sheep rather than feed them. If the Church wishes to persecute or excommunicate the likes of me because I don’t blindly believe everything I am told, it is her prerogative, but it is impossible to simultaneously support all the conflicting teachings and practices. If I have done what is right in my heart, and with no malice whatsoever toward the Church herself, and I believe if I hold firm, love others, stand up for the oppressed, etc then that’s the closest to “being perfect” as I know how to be. I have to worry about my salvation; Church leaders have to worry about their own.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

Where have you read that the Church teaches one earns salvation through works?

I am not articulate enough in Church teachings to answer the question you posed to another, but this issue is fascinating to me so I hope you don’t mind my jumping in.

It seems the “faith v works” is one of the big debates among Christians. As I understand (and I’m sure I’m not telling anybody on this forum anything new), the Bible teaches that faith without works is useless and possibly even nonexistent. It doesn’t bother me if the Church believes one must do works, not to earn salvation but to demonstrate and strengthen faith – which in turn brings salvation. It sounds to me like taking one side or the other in this debate is risky, as faith and works go hand-in-hand.

James 2:17-18:

So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.

Rich Mullins, the late Christian singer, took extensive training in Catholicism and died the very weekend he was to receive his first Communion. He wrote a song called “Screen Door” on this very issue. In context of the song, “faith without works is like a screen door on a submarine.” At a concert in Wichita, he chided Protestants who claimed faith but not works were required for salvation, while saying he is a bit nervous about becoming Catholic because they do require works and he doesn’t know if he can “measure up.” (paraphrased)

Alan

 

[fix]

Poor catechesis abounds today. The Church is at fault and we laity are at fault. Never in history have so many been so educated and had so many avenues available to learn the faith. We each will have much to answer for. As I said in another thread we Catholics know baseball statistics back to 1950, yet do not know the basics of our faith.

Your quibble about legalism and the mosaic law is as old as the hills. The faith is simple and deep. One does not need to be a scholar to be a faithful Catholic, but one can study 10 life times and not know all there is to know.

The CCC aptly describes what we must assent to. As early as Auqinas the Church has taught that if you reject even one teaching, you reject the entire faith. That is logical. The teachings you accept are not accepted based on Christ’s authority, but on your own. That is the crux of the issue…Authority.

I must be blunt. In my experience those that reject Church teachings are usually folks who reject teachings on issues of gender and genital sexuality. To quote Karl Keating I never hear about anyone reject the hypostatic union, it is always something about sex.

We reject these teachings because to accept them means having to change the way we lead our lives. That means not engaging in sinful behavior and we do not want to hear it.

 

[fix]

I am no expert in Justification. It is mostly a misunderstood issue to Protestants. My understanding is that through His death and ressurection Christ purchased our salvation. We do nothing to merit it. It is our inheritance. We can loose our salvation through mortal sin.

Grace is a gift that can be accepted or rejected. We are asked by Christ to do good works and we must do them, but that does not mean we do them to earn our salvation. We need faith and works.

 

[The_Augustinian]

I think that many problems underlying a dissenter’s rejection of the faith is overscrupulosity, which has plagued me from time to time. Martin Luther, for example, was over-scrupulous, reacting in a very extreme way as history tells us. So, we have to be careful about being too scrupulous, as if the Church is some sort of malevolent institution, thinking up new ways of making people guilty.

The fact is, the Church has very good reasons for laying down a set of rules. We all agree there’s nothing wrong with rules; God gave us ten rather important ones, which Our Lord condensed into two: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself. On this hang all the rules and regulations of the Church.

What exactly bothers you? I don’t want to pry, but feel free to tell us what Church teachings you disagree with, and your reasoning. I’ve never had much of a problem with following what the Church teaches, because to me it’s pretty much common sense: don’t treat people as means to an end, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery, don’t harm others. Now, it is true: we can sometimes lose sight of what is necessary, overwhelmed with a sea of seemingly endless regulations. It seems so very complex, and it is. But when is life not complex? Although life is, at its core, simple, it is also very complex at the same time. That is the mystery of life. It is also the mystery of faith. Jesus Christ came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. And His standards were much more exacting than that of the scribes and the teachers of the Law, for it is not merely following rules, but a fundamental conversion of the heart, a metanoia, that is most pleasing to God.

We are all plagued by the questions, “What have I done? What have I failed to do?” and start to despair of God’s grace. But, remember this: the Lord’s yoke is “sweet and light” and that “all things are possible with God.” We can only truly obey based upon the mercy of God’s grace. As you examine your conscience, remember that there is a loving God who wants to help you obey Him, and that He is willing to give you the graces to withstand any cross. Pray for the grace of obedience, for the grace of understanding those things which may seem hard to follow, and, above all, for a burning charity from God in all things. Amen.

The Augustinian

 

[fix]

The Augustinian:

I think that many problems underlying a dissenter’s rejection of the faith is overscrupulosity, which has plagued me from time to time. Martin Luther, for example, was over-scrupulous, reacting in a very extreme way as history tells us. So, we have to be careful about being too scrupulous, as if the Church is some sort of malevolent institution, thinking up new ways of making people guilty.

The fact is, the Church has very good reasons for laying down a set of rules. We all agree there’s nothing wrong with rules; God gave us ten rather important ones, which Our Lord condensed into two: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself. On this hang all the rules and regulations of the Church.

What exactly bothers you? I don’t want to pry, but feel free to tell us what Church teachings you disagree with, and your reasoning. I’ve never had much of a problem with following what the Church teaches, because to me it’s pretty much common sense: don’t treat people as means to an end, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery, don’t harm others. Now, it is true: we can sometimes lose sight of what is necessary, overwhelmed with a sea of seemingly endless regulations. It seems so very complex, and it is. But when is life not complex? Although life is, at its core, simple, it is also very complex at the same time. That is the mystery of life. It is also the mystery of faith. Jesus Christ came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. And His standards were much more exacting than that of the scribes and the teachers of the Law, for it is not merely following rules, but a fundamental conversion of the heart, a metanoia, that is most pleasing to God.

We are all plagued by the questions, “What have I done? What have I failed to do?” and start to despair of God’s grace. But, remember this: the Lord’s yoke is “sweet and light” and that “all things are possible with God.” We can only truly obey based upon the mercy of God’s grace. As you examine your conscience, remember that there is a loving God who wants to help you obey Him, and that He is willing to give you the graces to withstand any cross. Pray for the grace of obedience, for the grace of understanding those things which may seem hard to follow, and, above all, for a burning charity from God in all things. Amen.

The Augustinian

Your post is elegant and true. I know many suffer from scrupulosity, but I find that most Catholics who are cafeteria Catholics are so due to matters of sexuality.

Once they reject the teachings on sexuality they see all other teachings as burdensome and legalistic. They want the Church of cheap grace.

 

[trogiah]

I look through the Gospels to see what Jesus might have had to say on these topics. I have come up with the following.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
18
Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.
19
Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Notice that breaking the least of the commandments doesn’t risk losing the kingdom of heaven, rather they lose the chance to be great in the kingdom of heaven.

“I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Now he is talking about somthing more important than keeping the least of the commandents, he is talking about true righteousness - something required to enter God’s kingdom

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.

Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

They tie up heavy burdens (hard to carry) and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them."

**This very thing has happened throughout church history. I think in various times and places we could easily replace “scribes and Pharisees” with “Popes, bishops and priests and sisters.”

If we made that switch we should also recognize that they have taken their seat on the chair of Peter. We are called, not to dismess them as irrelevant, but to know that sometimes we may need to find God’s kingdom in spite of them rather than through there help. (I must add that there are many popes, bishops priests and sisters who do help a great deal, just not always)

With all this talk of heresy and excommunication, I think it is worth remembering that the only essential requirement for forgiveness from God is the practice of forgiveness oneself. That is absolutely true no matter what any pope or theoloian has ever declared.

So many burdens out there. So many that don’t need to be carried.**

At that time Jesus said in reply, "I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike.

"Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.

Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves.

For my yoke is easy, and my burden light."

** Our most important task is to be at peace with God. Not necessarily with the hierarchy of the church**

-Jim

 

[Hans_A]

AlanFromWichita:

This is scary and oppressive stuff; I used to try to “be perfect” in the eyes of the Church and it led me into a psychotic episode. Now that I have found some degree of peace and freedom, I still love the Church but must speak against practices that I believe divide and scare the sheep rather than feed them. If the Church wishes to persecute or excommunicate the likes of me because I don’t blindly believe everything I am told, it is her prerogative, but it is impossible to simultaneously support all the conflicting teachings and practices. If I have done what is right in my heart, and with no malice whatsoever toward the Church herself, and I believe if I hold firm, love others, stand up for the oppressed, etc then that’s the closest to “being perfect” as I know how to be. I have to worry about my salvation; Church leaders have to worry about their own.

Alan

Alan,

Please list the conflicting teachings and practices.

IMHO, the problems we have in the U.S. with dissention stems from us being a republic (that’s right a republic not a democracy). We feel that we should have a say in everything. When it comes to government, I agree; but when it comes to the Church then I disagree. Look at all the splintering of Protestant denominations. They are set up so the congregation has a say in a large number of the church goings-on (I can attest, because I used to be one). However, Jesus is King, not President. It is the Kingdom of Heaven, not the Republic of Heaven.

In Christ,
Hans

 

[fix]

trogiah:

I look through the Gospels to see what Jesus might have had to say on these topics. I have come up with the following.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
18
Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.
19
Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Notice that breaking the least of the commandments doesn’t risk losing the kingdom of heaven, rather they lose the chance to be great in the kingdom of heaven.

“I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Now he is talking about somthing more important than keeping the least of the commandents, he is talking about true righteousness - something required to enter God’s kingdom

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.

Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

They tie up heavy burdens (hard to carry) and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them."

**This very thing has happened throughout church history. I think in various times and places we could easily replace “scribes and Pharisees” with “Popes, bishops and priests and sisters.” **

If we made that switch we should also recognize that they have taken their seat on the chair of Peter. We are called, not to dismess them as irrelevant, but to know that sometimes we may need to find God’s kingdom in spite of them rather than through there help. (I must add that there are many popes, bishops priests and sisters who do help a great deal, just not always)

With all this talk of heresy and excommunication, I think it is worth remembering that the only essential requirement for forgiveness from God is the practice of forgiveness oneself. That is absolutely true no matter what any pope or theoloian has ever declared.

So many burdens out there. So many that don’t need to be carried.

At that time Jesus said in reply, "I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike.

"Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.

Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves.

For my yoke is easy, and my burden light."

Our most important task is to be at peace with God. Not necessarily with the hierarchy of the church

-Jim

Notice Christ’s displeasure with the Pharisees was not about authority, but hypocrisy. They had the authority. Christ said do exactly as they tell you to do. The Church, magisterium, has the authority.

 

[trogiah]

fix:

Notice Christ’s displeasure with the Pharisees was not about authority, but hypocrisy. They had the authority. Christ said do exactly as they tell you to do. The Church, magisterium, has the authority.

I believe it is true that the ideal is to follow all the details of the law. I believe this is what Jesus encouraged his followers to do.

Given that all of us are flawed and weak we often find that we cannot keep track of all the laws - or sometimes we are simply weak and give in to temptation.

I believe that Jesus clearly states, in several places in the gospels that if we can’t keep up with all the details of the law, it is far more important that we keep up with those given directly by God than it is to follow those given by men. Even men who may sit in the seat of Peter.

The seat of Peter does carry great authority. But it is limited authority. Those who excercise that authority have the power to do great good or to cause great harm. The Church and the whole world will be better off if the power is used always with humbleness before God and compassion for the faithful as the primary considerations. The power should never be used to “defend the church” as though some outside force actually could cause it to fail. The only thing we are called to defend is the souls of the faithful. That is really not accomplished by relentless insistence on following every detail of every law.

Through the prophet Micah, God states:

“He has told you, O man, what is good;
**********And what does the LORD require of you
**********But to do justice, to love kindness,
**********And to walk humbly with your God.”

All faithful should first be clear on that message, and then try to be better at keeping the details.

-Jim

 

[petra]

fix:

I must be blunt. In my experience those that reject Church teachings are usually folks who reject teachings on issues of gender and genital sexuality. To quote Karl Keating I never hear about anyone reject the hypostatic union, it is always something about sex.

We reject these teachings because to accept them means having to change the way we lead our lives. That means not engaging in sinful behavior and we do not want to hear it.

Well, for the record, my issues have absolutely nothing to do with sex. I am happily married, chaste, and do not practice contraception. I agree with all the moral teaching of the church. To be blunt, it is inappropriate for you to presume.

 

[annejohno]

Thank you Joan M for post #17

 

[petra]

My problems may stem partially from scrupulosity. I don’t think I have OCD, though. Where I’m at . . . I’m trying to determine what I believe about what Christ intended for the Church. Did He intend for it to be perfectly infallible or sufficiently infallible?

I was reading Galatians these past few days, I ran across another passage that I wanted to get everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut on that is relevant to this thread’s topic.

In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul is recounting a confrontation he had with Peter, who was at that time, Pope. Paul “opposed him to his face because he was clearly wrong.” Peter had begun disassociating himself with the Gentiles in fear of what the Jews would think of him. Peter’s actions caused others to be misguided and carried away with the hypocrisy. Paul said, "But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of all, ‘If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’ "

What I find interesting is that Paul’s dissent was directed at the Pope, it was confrontational, and it was public. I also find it interesting that the Pope was “not on the right road in line with the gospel.” I’m anticipating that people may say that Peter did not err in doctrine but merely lacked personal impeccability. But it seems to me that that would be splitting hairs. Regardless of whether he said something ex cathedra or not, his actions had the effect of misguiding people on something as central as the gospel. It took the dissent of Paul to get Peter back on track.

I actually have no problem being Catholic if the Church is not perfectly infallible. Nothing is perfect except for God. My faith is in God, not man. The important thing is that the Church is sufficiently infallible, which I believe it is. I place a higher regard on the role of the Holy Spirit’s guidance in a person’s life, than many Catholics do. This does create an element of some uncertainty (am I hearing from God correctly?), but the spiritual blessings for relying upon Him so completely far surpass what would be missed by rotely accepting a system that is very much influenced by humanness.

I believe in Sacred Tradition, but admittedly, I have somewhat greater confidence in the Scriptures. Most Scriptures are easy to interpret. I look to Catholic commentary whenever possible, but there is Biblical precedent to also let the Holy Spirit illuminate them for you (Psalms 119:18).

God is in control and is leading his Church through time until His coming. He is doing this according to His will and nothing happens without His permission. I believe He has left some things ambiguous in order for us to seek Him more diligently.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

petra:

I actually have no problem being Catholic if the Church is not perfectly infallible. Nothing is perfect except for God. My faith is in God, not man. The important thing is that the Church is sufficiently infallible, which I believe it is. I place a higher regard on the role of the Holy Spirit’s guidance in a person’s life, than many Catholics do. This does create an element of some uncertainty (am I hearing from God correctly?), but the spiritual blessings for relying upon Him so completely far surpass what would be missed by rotely accepting a system that is very much influenced by humanness.

I believe in Sacred Tradition, but admittedly, I have somewhat greater confidence in the Scriptures. Most Scriptures are easy to interpret. I look to Catholic commentary whenever possible, but there is Biblical precedent to also let the Holy Spirit illuminate them for you (Psalms 119:18).

God is in control and is leading his Church through time until His coming. He is doing this according to His will and nothing happens without His permission. I believe He has left some things ambiguous in order for us to seek Him more diligently.

Dear Petra,

Well said. The Church, understandibly, wants controls over how it is run. That said, I simply cannot buy that any human being or group thereof are the sole, infallible voices of God. We are told that it would cause problems if we each had our own conscience. We are told that we can’t really be sure of anything unless we’ve first checked it out to see that it agrees with Church teachings and tradition. To this I ask, why did Jesus give us the Holy Spirit?

The Church gives us many wonderful teachings, traditions and sacraments which point us to God. If I believe the Church is infallible and is beyond question or dissent, then I have made Church into God, which is a form of idolatry. If that’s what the Church teaches, then the Church herself needs to look in the mirror and judge herself.

Alan

 

[The_Augustinian]

“And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.”
–Matthew 12:25

Upon the foundation of Peter and the Apostles, the Lord Jesus Christ built His Church, commanding them: “teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

How, then, can the Church go astray in its teachings, especially that of its Holy Councils? Although its members are imperfect, it has recieved the charism of the Holy Spirit to be infallible in its teachings, a protection over all truths of faith and morals. And thus we, the laity will not be confounded.

The Church has also been given authority over matters of discipline. As in the earliest council in Jerusalem, and in the rules set forth by St. Paul, the Church to this day has the power over her members in terms of discipline.

Perhaps we do not understand everything that the Church teaches, nor why it has given us a certain law. But, it is not our position to judge, but to humbly obey the teachings of the Church, asking the Holy Spirit: “Open thou my eyes: and I will consider the wondrous things of thy law.” May God grant us a faith seeking understanding, speaking as an undivided Church, “Thou hast the words of eternal life.” Amen.

The Augustinian