What do I do? I don't have a spiritual home anymore.

[Allegra]

Couldn’t you have waited at least a week before you started throwing condemnations around? There are more than enough hurdles on the path of a believer, don’t be one. Don’t keep the pharisaic spirit alive, Jesus hated it.

All he did was quote the official Church teaching. He didn’t condemn anyone. I think he was just trying to clarify. Yours was pretty accusatory though.

 

[Allegra]

I don’t read ‘obstinate’ as meaning ‘insincere’ or ‘arising merely through negligent failure to look for the truth.’

When we find it difficult to accept some necessary teaching of the Church we are not to merely say ‘I doubt and cannot in good conscience accept’, we are to say ‘I believe, help my unbelief’.

Now St Augustine was no slouch as a student, thinker or reasoner. But He understood that there are some teachings - the Trinity, the Incarnation and the like - that are simply beyond our capacity to really wrap our heads around. And so he said we believe and then seek understanding rather than the other way around.

This is where Jesus’ admonition to become like little children comes in. Children accept all sorts of things without seeking the why’s and wherefores, simply because they trust the person who tells them. People may deceive or prey on the trust of a child, but then the fault is with them, not the child.

Obstinate means the same thing as stubborn. A person who is obstinate in doubt is one who either refuses to examine evidence for fear of it contradicting his believe, or who ignores or unjustly discredits the evidence out of his unwillingness to change his own belief. I think we are on the same page. A person can have doubt in a teaching, through no fault of their own, but if they still choose to submit to the authority of the Church and seek to understand the truth, they are not in disobedience.

 

[Robertanthony]

All he did was quote the official Church teaching. He didn’t condemn anyone. I think he was just trying to clarify. Yours was pretty accusatory though.

Did the pharisees condemn Jesus when they snarkily asked him if he thought it was against Moses’ Law to perform a miracle on the day of the Sabbath, which is some kind of physical exertion (work) I would venture to say? Who started posting the definition of “heresy” in this thread? Someone who in good faith endorses everything about the Church but papal infalliblity, which he struggles with but does not arrogantly denies is NOT a heretic. Sorry I had to spell it out for you.

 

[jinc1019]

First, I would like to say thank you so much for all of the support, wishes, prayers, and thoughts. I will read every single post and be sure to consider all of your thoughts with care. I will respond to as many posts as I can…Thank you again for your time, all of you. I will meet with a priest as soon as I can.

 

[jinc1019]

Brother, I feel your pain in more ways that I care to admit.

See if you can find a Priest in your area that has the time to talk and research with you.

My little advice would be to start from the foundation of Christianity without ignoring its rich History.

Please understand that I am not trying to ignore or minimize your intelligence and your experience. But I don’t think there is any other way than to set root in what you believe.

Nicene Creed:
.

If you agree with this then you should not despair. If you don’t then you need to reexamine your belief system.

One step at a time and don’t rush.

Above ALL, pray to our Lord for His Grace and Guidance.

I pray that the Lord comforts you in your search for Him and that you are able to listen and obey Him.

God Bless you brother.

Thanks for the kind words and I do appreciate your prayers…I am praying every single day for a resolution to my internal disputes. Thanks again for your time.

Also, just to reiterate, I do believe in the entirety of the Nicene Creed.

 

[jinc1019]

If the only part of the faith you don’t agree with is the concept of papal infaillability, then I don’t see a problem and this is why. If you truely don’t disent on even one other teaching of the faith, than you are not in disobedience unless you go around telling others not to believe in papal infailability. Everybody has doubt and you can doubt a teaching and still follow it. For example, some people may disagree with the teaching of not using birth control but submit to the teachings of the Church despite their doubt. From what you said it sounds as if you disagree that the Pope is protected from error by the Holy Spirit, but you happen to agree with every doctrine the Popes have currently declared. Therefore, you are not currently in a state of disobedience, so I don’t see why you can’t be in a state of grace for the Eucharist. Now, if the Pope makes a statement ex cathedra that you aren’t willing to follow, then you’ve got yourself a problem, so I would continue seeking the truth in good faith.

I want to be clear on this…I do disagree with certain Church teachings that have been determined based on the doctrine of infallibility, such as contraception for married couples.

 

[jinc1019]

Your post brings out many interesting points.

First, there is a difference between between infallible and impeccable. Do you know the difference? (honest question, hope it doesn’t seem acusatory (interweb is hard to know vocal inflections and meaning and people take things the wrong way a LOT!!!).

Yes, I do know the difference and don’t base any of my beliefs on the idea that the Pope should walk around being perfect in every element of life. I believe papal infallibility is wrong for reasons based in the Bible.

 

[LilyM]

Obstinate means the same thing as stubborn. A person who is obstinate in doubt is one who either refuses to examine evidence for fear of it contradicting his believe, or who ignores or unjustly discredits the evidence out of his unwillingness to change his own belief. I think we are on the same page. A person can have doubt in a teaching, through no fault of their own, but if they still choose to submit to the authority of the Church and seek to understand the truth, they are not in disobedience.

See, I think you can be obstinate without being any of those things.

I would say William Wilberforce was an obstinate anti slavery campaigner. I don’t get the impression that he was scared to examine the views of his opponents, or in any way ignored or unjustly discredited them. He disagreed, and vehemently, but with perfectly good reason, and succeeded in turning many around (which implies that he took seriously and seriously responded to their views - no-one likes being patronized or dismissed).

So I think it is possible, after serious study and full and due consideration of all sides, to be as persistently (obstinately) doubtful as Wilberforce was persistently (obstinately) convicted.

 

[triumphguy]

I wouldn’t say these teaching have been determined “based on,” rather they are taught as the infallible teaching of the church.

If it’s contraception you are having trouble with there’s still no need to panic.

Find out what you real concerns are and see if they can be addressed before you decide that you are a heretic. I.e. don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

Lots of people - me included - have/or had trouble with the Church’s teaching on sexuality. Just because the Church’s is challenging doesn’t make it wrong. I found that when I let go of my own stubbornness “that which was bitter became sweet” to quote St. Francis.

Sometimes you have to work through things and it can take time. In the end though you will find that God is patient.

 

[DJK100]

Yes, I do know the difference and don’t base any of my beliefs on the idea that the Pope should walk around being perfect in every element of life. I believe papal infallibility is wrong for reasons based in the Bible.

Hi jinc,

I know you are probably asked this a lot but how do you know the bible is correct? I am curious because I don’t see how anyone one could put faith in the teachings in the bible unless they know they are correct. Otherwise it is just eveyman’s opinion for themselves.

You can PM is you want or if you have another thread point me to where you explain your thoughts because I would truely like to know and don’t want to hijack this thread.

Thanks.

 

[Trebor135]

I agree - spiritual direction is a good plan. Try to reconcile yourself with the Church despite your fallible opinion on infallibility and do so in the context of ongoing spiritual direction. Some might point you in the direction of one of the Orthodox churches, but I find that an unlikely fit unless you are culturally aligned with them.

Not necessarily. My city has a parish of the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church and another of the Orthodox Church in America. To the best of my knowledge, both mostly use English and largely serve native anglophones.

Papal infallibility has been an enormous stumbling block for me as well. I know what the OP is going through.

I concur with the suggestion that you see a priest or two–the clergy are not able in every case to carry on discussions of such calibre. Not only may priests not always believe what their clerical vestments suggest, but they may also just not be very good at engaging effectively with objections to the faith they profess (doing so isn’t everyone’s gift).

 

[jinc1019]

As a practical matter, where has a Pope ever erred in making an ex-Cathedra pronouncement? Remember that the eyes of the entire world are upon the Pope. If he declared something demonstrably false, it would be a permanent headline. He can never declare, nor can the Church teach, something that is at odds with scripture. Note: Scripture must be interpreted correctly before any such comparison is made.

He has never declared something by himself. The entire college of Cardinals has been with him in his discernment process and in his pronouncements. He is simply the voice of Peter that silences the discussion, as seen in Acts 15.

I think your problem is not so much with infallibility, since that also applies to the normal magisterium of the Church. I think you have a problem with Church authority in a more general sense.

By What Authority? by Mark Shea.

First of all, the college of Cardinals was a later development of the Church, not an initial apostolic office, so your statement is a little misleading. Secondly, you argue that because I can’t point to a specific declaration the Pope made that was infallible that this “evidence” is proof of his infallibility. This argument is often made and is easily refuted in my view. The vast majority of ex-Cathedra announcements made by the Pope can be neither scientifically proven nor disproven, making it impossible for me to point to something and say it’s not true and impossible for you to point to something, using actual evidence, and say that it is true. They are often moral judgments made by the Church, accompanied by a claim on infallibility.

To point to something specific, I would say that papal infallibility itself is untrue…and the teaching of it is therefore a fallacy, and is therefore proof of infallibility…but that is an unfair argument for me to make of course, but no more unfair than the argument you made.

I would say this though: Read Mathew 16 and then Mathew 18…Then ask yourself what is being promised to Peter in Mathew 16 that is also being promised to the rest of the apostles in Mathew 18, and then consider whether infallibility is possible when all the apostles were promised infallibility and the various churches representing those apostolic seats today disagree with the Pope on the issue of infallibility.

 

[jinc1019]

The catechism (2089) states, “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.”

According to the Catechism (and therefore the Church and by natural extension God), one is not worse than the other.

Thomas repented when he took time and looked for the Truth.

Are you saying I am a heretic?

 

[jinc1019]

I second going to speak with a priest, but also, pray. There have been times when I didn’t understand a teaching and so I learned to obey (act as if I believed) and pray about it. God always let me know what I needed to know one way or another… sometimes through reading, sometimes through something someone said, and sometimes just by letting me know directly.

I will certainly pray!

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Please realize that I want to help you. Don’t be too smart for your own good. Many times we over intellectualize every detail of our religion when we would be far better off by just believing like children do. Remember, that is what Christ recommended.
I also recommend that you seek out a priest and discuss the matter with him; but not just any priest. I have no idea where you are located, but go on line and try to locate a parish or other establishment run by either the Jesuits or Dominicans. These priests are the intellectual giants of the church and can help you reconcile your beliefs with Holy Mother The Church without spouting platitudes.
Lastly, it wouldn’t hurt for you to say the rosary before you go to sleep at night. Ask the Holy Mother to help you in your intellectual search for truth. If done diligently for any length of time, you will be absolutely amazed at the results!

 

[DJK100]

First of all, the college of Cardinals was a later development of the Church, not an initial apostolic office, so your statement is a little misleading. Secondly, you argue that because I can’t point to a specific declaration the Pope made that was infallible that this “evidence” is proof of his infallibility. This argument is often made and is easily refuted in my view. The vast majority of ex-Cathedra announcements made by the Pope can be neither scientifically proven nor disproven, making it impossible for me to point to something and say it’s not true and impossible for you to point to something, using actual evidence, and say that it is true. They are often moral judgments made by the Church, accompanied by a claim on infallibility.

To point to something specific, I would say that papal infallibility itself is untrue…and the teaching of it is therefore a fallacy, and is therefore proof of infallibility…but that is an unfair argument for me to make of course, but no more unfair than the argument you made.

I would say this though: Read Mathew 16 and then Mathew 18…Then ask yourself what is being promised to Peter in Mathew 16 that is also being promised to the rest of the apostles in Mathew 18, and then consider whether infallibility is possible when all the apostles were promised infallibility and the various churches representing those apostolic seats today disagree with the Pope on the issue of infallibility.

Hi from this post is safe to assume you believe in some form of infallibility – just not papal?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

First, speaking with your priest, as others have said, is definitely a good plan.

I know you don’t want to start up the debate, but this is how I generally think we should think about areas where we tend to disagree with the Church. For example, after all the thinking I’ve been able to do, my reason leads to the conclusion that the death penalty should be allowed and used in cases of the most extreme crimes even in countries like the U.S. where life imprisonment is fairly easy and safe. But it appears that nearly all the bishops and the pope disagree with me. This is the same basic approach that I use for myself here (although this disagreement is of a different sort than yours, and for those reading who support the death penalty, I am well aware that Catholics aren’t actually required to think it’s a bad idea, but there’s enough agreement among the bishops that for my own purposes I’ve decided to treat it as though I am, if not as though others are).

Something to think about: If you don’t believe in papal infallibility, then you either see evidence which leads you to believe that it is false, or don’t see evidence that leads you to believe it’s true. In either case, it’s your own reason - possibly based on revelation, but still your reason - that leads you to this conclusion.

But presumably, you do believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church as a whole - that is, that the Catholic Church was instituted by God and led by God to teach what should be taught.

Now, certainly we should follow our reason as a general rule. But we must also admit that human reason is fallible, and that in areas where there is rampant disagreement among intelligent people, from an objective standpoint there is no particular reason why our reasoning should, because it is ours, be any better than anyone else’s. Again, normally, this statement doesn’t mean much because there is also no particular reason why anyone else’s arguments should be, by virtue of being their arguments, more likely to be true than ours.

But in this case, it’s not us versus other reasonably intelligent people. It’s us versus the Church, which, as Catholics, we believe does have better reason to be right than we do.

So what do we do? We cannot shelve our reason. We can only spend so much time investigating a given issue. There comes a point when we need to stop arguing about it and move on. But move on how?

The solution, I think, is to simply recognize that the chances of us being right about everything we think up is nearly zero, and to intellectually admit that our disagreement is simply one of those things. I’m not saying to shelve your arguments entirely, but don’t dwell on them either. If something comes up referencing the issue, examine it, compare it to the arguments you’ve made, see if anything changes, then put the issue back away until further notice.

In conversations with others, feel free to examine the topic, but approach it from the direction not of proving your point, but of seeing how disproving the Church fails - which is the same exact argument logically, since part of proving your point is attempting to break your argument as well in order to see if it holds true.

Basically, we should follow the teaching externally, and also follow it internally at least to the extent of recognizing that our own reason is not superior to the Church.

(This, I think, is a combination of the “don’t worry about it too much” and the “Argh! Heresy!” (yes I’m simplifying, the poster did say more, that was a joke) responses you’ve seen, both of which have their true points. In short: don’t worry about it too much, but admit that you’re probably wrong even if you don’t completely discard the reasons why you think you’re right in so doing.)

Your reason may still tell you that you’re right. You’re gut may still tell you that you’re right. If you are right, then God will reward you for the difficult task of obedience in heaven. If you’re wrong, then God will reward you for the even more difficult task of obedience in heaven.

In the mean time and in all senses but the one mentioned above - don’t worry about it. Worry about other things instead, there’s enough to go around.

 

[JNdoum]

I believe you may misunderstand what papal infallibility is. It is not saying that every statement the pope ever makes in infallible, nor that the pope can pull some strange new truth from his miter and proclaim it infallible. In essence, the pope truly can only reaffirm pre-extablished Catholic truths through infallibility, as far as I understand it, because part of the teaching of the church is that “there is nothing new under the sun,” and there is no new truth to be revealed about the faith (besides valid private revalations) until the parousia, or Jesus’ second coming. Another fun fact is, the pope has only ever used this power twice, and neither time was about Jesus: one was on the Immaculate Conception, the other on the Assumption, both of which were already widely believed by Catholic everywhere. Correct me if I’m wrong though, but papal infallibility should truly not be that big an issue. Especially if you believe in apostolic succesion, and that the Holy Spirit actively chooses Peter’s successor, so that he would not be some evil, corrupt man.

 

[po18guy]

First of all, the college of Cardinals was a later development of the Church, not an initial apostolic office, so your statement is a little misleading. Secondly, you argue that because I can’t point to a specific declaration the Pope made that was infallible that this “evidence” is proof of his infallibility. This argument is often made and is easily refuted in my view. The vast majority of ex-Cathedra announcements made by the Pope can be neither scientifically proven nor disproven, making it impossible for me to point to something and say it’s not true and impossible for you to point to something, using actual evidence, and say that it is true. They are often moral judgments made by the Church, accompanied by a claim on infallibility.

To point to something specific, I would say that papal infallibility itself is untrue…and the teaching of it is therefore a fallacy, and is therefore proof of infallibility…but that is an unfair argument for me to make of course, but no more unfair than the argument you made.

I would say this though: Read Mathew 16 and then Mathew 18…Then ask yourself what is being promised to Peter in Mathew 16 that is also being promised to the rest of the apostles in Mathew 18, and then consider whether infallibility is possible when all the apostles were promised infallibility and the various churches representing those apostolic seats today disagree with the Pope on the issue of infallibility.

i was going to rephrase my “argument” but it will clearly fail. I’m out.

 

[Phillip31]

the point is…because I believe what I have just stated, I cannot have the Eucharist, I cannot be a full-fledged member of the Church, and as a result, I cannot live the life I believe Jesus wanted me to live. So what do I do? I don’t want to disrespect the Church and just ignore their authority by taking communion and pretending to be in full communion with the Pope…but I don’t know what else to do.

I dont believe in Papal infallibility either. Don’t allow yourself to feel unworthy of accepting Christ with belief and adoration in the Eucharist. That would be against what Jesus asked to do in rememberance of him. Your discomfort is not from the bible. Stay at the same Church, they dont refuse you do they? Remember Christ recieved the Holy Spirit into his body, taught us to live selfless lives, died for our sins, defeated death for us, and was excited to return to Heaven so he could send us the helper the Holy Spirit, of whom Jesus spoke" Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days". The temple he spoke of what his body the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit, If you have repented from your sin and believe in Jesus then you recieve the Holy Spirit into your body. Your body is a Holy Temple to the Lord, he made a Spiritual home inside you. The caring things you do for others are Faith offerings, something aromatic and pleasing to the Lord. So you show your Faith in the Lord by loving gestures to others with your heart. That is Faith with works, you lack nothing needed.

Also, if you care to know Church means dedicated to the Lord or house of worship and ecclesiastes means preacher. I see ecclesiastes as the true name of the church, and that each of us is a church (a living temple for the Lord) abiding in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.