Thinking Differently, but staying in the Church?

[bzkoss236]

I appreciate your passion but you have yet to answer the question. I would like a source that states that the Catholic Church will not allow me to receive the sacraments if I believe infallibility is wrong. I am not saying it doesn’t exist; I am just saying that was the point of this post. We can debate all of these issues in another thread.

I don’t think it states specifically about infallibility, but in general about holding to the beliefs of the Catholic Church. When one goes up to receive the Eucharist, they are essentially declaring that they confess to hold all Catholic doctrine as true, even if they do not understand them completely. This is one reason that Protestants are not allowed to take communion (except in special circumstances), because they are not in ‘communion’ with the Church as they do not hold to the Church’s beliefs. Also, the CCC says that those in a state of mortal sin are not allowed to receive the Eucharist, of which heresy is a sin. So, if you hold to heretical teaching, and are not sorry for it, then I don’t think you would be eligible for any of the Sacraments, including Confession, as you would have unrepentant sin. Even if you went to confession, and withheld your views of heresy, you would be invalidating your Confession, making it ineffective in forgiving your sins.

I know heresy sounds like a harsh word, but all it means is that you hold to be true that which is against the teachings of the Church. Just as a Protestant would hold certain Catholic doctrine as heresy because it goes against their teachings.

We’re just trying to help you out, brother.

I’d also still like you to answer if you think that any Christian, or any Christian Ecclesiastical Community has the ability to declare infallible doctrine, and an example of the (obviously exaggerated) ‘millions’ of possible false doctrines you say the Church teaches. Thank you in advance.

 

[jinc1019]

I don’t think it states specifically about infallibility, but in general about holding to the beliefs of the Catholic Church. When one goes up to receive the Eucharist, they are essentially declaring that they confess to hold all Catholic doctrine as true, even if they do not understand them completely. This is one reason that Protestants are not allowed to take communion (except in special circumstances), because they are not in ‘communion’ with the Church as they do not hold to the Church’s beliefs. Also, the CCC says that those in a state of mortal sin are not allowed to receive the Eucharist, of which heresy is a sin. So, if you hold to heretical teaching, and are not sorry for it, then I don’t think you would be eligible for any of the Sacraments, including Confession, as you would have unrepentant sin. Even if you went to confession, and withheld your views of heresy, you would be invalidating your Confession, making it ineffective in forgiving your sins.

I know heresy sounds like a harsh word, but all it means is that you hold to be true that which is against the teachings of the Church. Just as a Protestant would hold certain Catholic doctrine as heresy because it goes against their teachings.

We’re just trying to help you out, brother.

I’d also still like you to answer if you think that any Christian, or any Christian Ecclesiastical Community has the ability to declare infallible doctrine, and an example of the (obviously exaggerated) ‘millions’ of possible false doctrines you say the Church teaches. Thank you in advance.

I do not think any Christian group has the ability to declare a doctrine KNOWING the Holy Spirit is protecting them with infallibility. I do believe it is possible for a Christian church to declare something as infallibly true, such as Jesus is God.

 

[jinc1019]

I don’t think it states specifically about infallibility, but in general about holding to the beliefs of the Catholic Church. When one goes up to receive the Eucharist, they are essentially declaring that they confess to hold all Catholic doctrine as true, even if they do not understand them completely. This is one reason that Protestants are not allowed to take communion (except in special circumstances), because they are not in ‘communion’ with the Church as they do not hold to the Church’s beliefs. Also, the CCC says that those in a state of mortal sin are not allowed to receive the Eucharist, of which heresy is a sin. So, if you hold to heretical teaching, and are not sorry for it, then I don’t think you would be eligible for any of the Sacraments, including Confession, as you would have unrepentant sin. Even if you went to confession, and withheld your views of heresy, you would be invalidating your Confession, making it ineffective in forgiving your sins.

I know heresy sounds like a harsh word, but all it means is that you hold to be true that which is against the teachings of the Church. Just as a Protestant would hold certain Catholic doctrine as heresy because it goes against their teachings.

We’re just trying to help you out, brother.

I’d also still like you to answer if you think that any Christian, or any Christian Ecclesiastical Community has the ability to declare infallible doctrine, and an example of the (obviously exaggerated) ‘millions’ of possible false doctrines you say the Church teaches. Thank you in advance.

Thank you for the information by the way. After thinking about it, I think you may be right about approaching this by examining mortal sins. I opened this thread to deal with this issue: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10541733#post10541733

I believe determining whether the rejection of papal infallibility is a mortal sin or not should be the focus of the discussion so I am moving over to that thread. I appreciate all of the responses.

 

[guanophore]

Great point…however, it is irrelevant. In fact, your question actually shines the light on just how absurd this requirement is. If a person believes in everything the Church teaches except infallibility, that person is still not eligible to receive the sacraments or engage fully in the Church.

I don’t think you can produce any evidence from the Church that a person who has doubts about infallibility is “not eligible” to receive the sacraments, or engage fully in the Church. These seem to be fabrications of your own mind, or possibly projections.

A person who obstinantly refuses to beleive the Teachings of the Church has broken communion with the One Faith. They are, by definition, unable to engage fully in the Church. It is excommunication latæ sententiæ - the act in itself triggers the breakage of communion. One who embraces obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith is no longer in communion with the Church.

This is not something the Church “does” to you, but something you do to yourself. The Church does cannot offer communion to a person in a state of heresy because she cannot contribute the the judgment that comes upon a person receiving in an unworthy manner.

 

[guanophore]

You believe it cannot err because it told you it cannot err and the reason you believed it when it told you it could not err is because you believed it could not err. It’s completely circular logic and it proves nothing, especially not that it cannot err. Simply saying it does not make it so.

I agree that the example you have given here is circular. Fortunately, you are in error about the foundations of my conclusions, so your point is moot. It also seems that you have a great deal of problems with Catholicism besides the nature of infallibilty. It seems that you do not really believe that Jesus, the Son of God, came to earth and revealed Truth to us. If a person cannot believe in divine revelation, then one will certainly be caught in an endless circle. I would not really call it “logic”, though, since the approach you describe above in my opinion defies logic.

 

[bzkoss236]

I do not think any Christian group has the ability to declare a doctrine KNOWING the Holy Spirit is protecting them with infallibility. I do believe it is possible for a Christian church to declare something as infallibly true, such as Jesus is God.

But don’t you think God would have provided us a way to KNOW what is true? You could say scripture, but then who would have the authority to infallibly interpret scripture?

I don’t think Christ would have left us out in the cold to play a game of telephone and make up stuff based on how we understand the Bible. There has to be a way to determine what is absolutely true, and there has to be a Church which ONLY teaches truth, otherwise I feel that would mean Christ has abandoned us, leaving us to guess and assume what he taught and what God’s will is for the Body of Christ on earth. And I just can’t accept that.

There has to be a way to determine what is true. There has to be a Church which teaches all truth as would be protected from teaching that which is not true by the Holy Spirit. Looking at history, the Catholic Church would have to be that Church.

 

[guanophore]

Trust me, I assure you I understand how it works. You are way off topic.

I am sure you believe that you do, but your statements indicate otherwise.

The Catholic faith is ONE FAITH. We are not at liberty to “think differently”. The Apostles were quite clear on this point.

1 Tim 1:3-4
“I urge you, as I did when I was on my way to Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus so that you may instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine”

1 Cor 1:10-11
Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you **be united in the same mind and the same purpose. **

Phil 2:2
make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

Phil 3:14-15
15 Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you.

Eph 4:3
maintain the unity of the Spirit … the unity of the faith…Eph 4:13

Eph 4:4-5
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism…

We don’t get to pick and choose which parts we want to embrace, and which we reject. We are either in the one faith, or out of it. When you reject the unity of the faith, you place yourself outside of communion.

 

[guanophore]

Would a Protestant who investigates Christian history and decides to leave his denomination for Catholicism or Eastern/non-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy be guilty of "[making] [himself] the moral standard by which 'all of the major denominations' should be measured"?

That depends entirely upon the person, and the method they are using. I am just observing what jinc has posted. Hubris is non-denominational.

Also, the Eastern and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches both deny papal infallibility as an apostolic teaching–are they guilty of “hubris”?

I have read some Orthodox authors who certainly seem to communicate an attitude of arrogance. However, most of the non-Catholics whom I have studied that reject this dogma do so out of sincerity of conscience. Jinc has not had time to read the link I posted on conscience.

PS: [Since this issue has been commented upon in this thread:] If I am not mistaken, the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t have a dogma about infallibility in the same way the Catholic Church does. (I can’t speak to what stance the Oriental Orthodox Church takes on this issue, though.)

But Jinc is right that they also believe that the Church is protected by the divine gift of infallibility. They just believe that it operates through the sensus fidelum, and the councils.

 

[guanophore]

I do not think any Christian group has the ability to declare a doctrine KNOWING the Holy Spirit is protecting them with infallibility.

In that case you seem to be saying that you do not believe the Scriptures are the inerrant and inspired Word of God.

Acts 15:28
8 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…

You are saying that you do not believe the Church functioned, from the beginning, the way Jesus intended them to function (a Christian group having the ability to declare a doctrine knowing the HS was protecting them with infallibility). So your disbelief goes beyond the doctrine of infallibility, but to much more basic issues. Even our separated brethren believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. Rejecting this causes one to wonder if you really can identify yourself as “Christian”, much less Catholic.

I do believe it is possible for a Christian church to declare something as infallibly true, such as Jesus is God.

You keep going on about logic, and yet, you make this completely illogical assertion. It is a direct contradiction to your statement above.

Anyway, it does not seem that you really do believe Jesus is the Son of God. More that he is a liar, lunatic, or a fraud. He claimed to be God, but could not keep the promises he made to the Church.

 

[brian614]

If a person believes in everything the Church teaches except infallibility, that person is still not eligible to receive the sacraments or engage fully in the Church.

How could someone believe in everything BUT infallibility??? There would be no reason to deny infallibility because they believed everything the Church taught…

 

[7armyrugrats]

How could someone believe in everything BUT infallibility??? There would be no reason to deny infallibility because they believed everything the Church taught…

Exactly…

It just goes round and round…

 

[Michael_Allen]

Hi Jinc,

In the Benedictine tradition there is a vow of stability - to stay in one place and work out salvation and faith from there. This reflects an old saying from the Desert Fathers…

A brother from Scetis went to ask for a word from Abba Moses and the old man said to him, “Go and sit in your cell and your cell will teach you everything.”

I think there is a strong temptation to try to find a Church or church that is “like us”. We might try to look for a Church whose doctrines most closely match our own views at the time, or we might look for a church that matches our taste in liturgy, even if that means going away from our most local home parish. But Abba Moses, and the Benedictine rule, gives us another approach - stay where you are are and work things out from there, in the community you are in (even if they like guitars in mass and you don’t).

I myself went through a long period of doubt in God and Jesus, so doubts about specific doctrines now always seems secondary to me - that’s nothing compared with real doubt in God’s presence or His goodness (not that I experienced the latter but I know that suffering, or witnessing suffering, can induce that doubt). I was in a Church where it was easy to slip quietly away. But as I slipped away I admired my wife’s commitment to her Catholic faith even in dry times. She didn’t just stay in Church when she agreed with everything and felt the loving presence of God - she stayed no matter what her feelings and thoughts were. It was her stability that proved to be the anchor that brought me back to our Lord Jesus Christ, and then to the Catholic Church. I learned a powerful lesson in stability, from my wife’s commitment to it, and from my own lack of it, and so when I read the words attributed to Abba Moses and Benedict they really “clicked” with me.

Anyway, that’s just one personal perspective in case it helps any.

God bless you +

 

[charlc]

Papal infallibility is a fundamental teaching of the Church. It is dogma. You must choose to believe what the Church proposes for your belief - that is the theological virtue of faith.

CCC 1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself.

Papal infallibility is dogma. You must change your belief to conform to Church teaching in spite of your reasearch. You must decide to believe.

-Tim-

I agree completely with the above submission.You certainly need to pray for the gift of faith to believe in God and all that His Church teaches, because He has said it, and His word is true. On your own, certainly you can not acquire the virtue given by God the Holy Spirit. The writings of our fathers in faith may never convince you on the Church’s dogma. The ‘Confession of St. Augustine’ or the writings of other great Saints like St. Paul will not either. You will certainly be requiring for proof to believe in the Sacraments. You certainly need to open your heart for the grace of God to illumine your soul. Humility and conversion will soften your heart and enable the Word of God to change your belief.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I appreciate the advice. I have learned long ago in this process (before I was a Christian at all) that keeping my mind open is essential to discovering the truth. However, my question still remains…if this is what I believe, am I allowed to be a member of the Church or not?

I think that will be something of a judgement call. You seem open to the Spirit. I’d go to Confession and mention your doubts to your pastor and discuss it with him. Perhaps spiritual direction may help here too. Whatever happens, I don’t suggest straying from the bosom of the Church. Will it might not be prudent to receive Communion if you are certain you cannot affirm what the Church believes, I would still attend Mass and participate in the life of the Church. You are still part of Christ’s Body regardless of your stance on papal infallibility: you are baptised and a believer.

God be with you.

 

[Michael_Allen]

… it might not be prudent to receive Communion if you are certain you cannot affirm what the Church believes, I would still attend Mass and participate in the life of the Church. You are still part of Christ’s Body regardless of your stance on papal infallibility: you are baptised and a believer.

I guess there’s always a personal conscience call as to whether to receive communion. Personally, the question of Papal infallibility is not one on which I would decide to receive, or not receive, communion. I’d be wary of making any decision based on any single doctrine of the Church. I tend to think we receive communion out of our Lord’s grace and perfect understanding, and not our own (none of us “deserve” to receive communion with our Lord in the Eucharist or elsewhere; it’s all a gift of grace on God’s part).

Appreciating that others would make a different decision.

 

[Trebor135]

That depends entirely upon the person, and the method they are using.

How could it depend on the individual? And which method would be acceptable and which flawed?

I am just observing what jinc has posted.

OK.

Hubris is non-denominational.

True.

I have read some Orthodox authors who certainly seem to communicate an attitude of arrogance.

Do you have any names in mind? Are you sure they weren’t actually engaging in triumphalism?

However, most of the non-Catholics whom I have studied that reject this dogma do so out of sincerity of conscience.

I appreciate this admission.

Jinc has not had time to read the link I posted on conscience.

But accusing him of hubris is pretty severe. If others can reject papal infallibility as an apostolic doctrine, why not him?

But Jinc is right that they also believe that the Church is protected by the divine gift of infallibility. They just believe that it operates through the sensus fidelum, and the councils.

True.

 

[Porknpie]

Thank you for the information by the way. After thinking about it, I think you may be right about approaching this by examining mortal sins. I opened this thread to deal with this issue: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10541733#post10541733

I believe determining whether the rejection of papal infallibility is a mortal sin or not should be the focus of the discussion so I am moving over to that thread. I appreciate all of the responses.

Jinc,

If you get a chance, stop in and visit St Peters downtown. I love this church. It’s a great place to stop and pray. They have seven masses daily and confession from 7:30am - 6pm. In addition, the Franciscan Friars will meet with you from 10-5pm.

Suggest that you take advantage. It’s a special place that has been good for me on my journey of faith.

St Peter’s in Chicago

 

[jonathan_hili]

I guess there’s always a personal conscience call as to whether to receive communion. Personally, the question of Papal infallibility is not one on which I would decide to receive, or not receive, communion. I’d be wary of making any decision based on any single doctrine of the Church. I tend to think we receive communion out of our Lord’s grace and perfect understanding, and not our own (none of us “deserve” to receive communion with our Lord in the Eucharist or elsewhere; it’s all a gift of grace on God’s part).

Appreciating that others would make a different decision.

I really sympathise with your point, Michael, it is a difficult call. That’s why I recommended he speak to his pastor and go to Confession, perhaps that will help clear things for him.