J
JReducation
Guest
Bold is mine.
This is extremely important. The Church cannot change what she does not have the authority to change.
Have a Blessed Christmas,
Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
What in Church teaching is infallable and must be believed and what is not?
- Status
This is extremely important. The Church cannot change what she does not have the authority to change.
Have a Blessed Christmas,
Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
J
JReducation
Guest
A female monk is a cloistered nun, such as:
Poor Clares,
Trappists,
Benedictines
Carmelites
Visitation
Cistercians
Trinitarians
Carthusian
Dominican
Augustinian
Take your pick.
Have a holy Christmas
Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
R
rwoehmke
Guest
It makes all kinds of sense. Being a sinner does not usually disqualify one for membership in the Church. Many people who hold one or more of these positions tend to shade over into what I would call cultural Catholics(The family has always been Catholic and we are comfortable there and so on.) Often the persons in question disagree with only one or two of these teachings and not all of them lead to excommunication. It is a sad situation, but as one Russian leader used to say,“The Pope has no Army.” They can hardly be physically removed no matter how offensive their positions might be to the other members of the Church. Pray for them.
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe that we often forget that infallible decrees are not the only thing that makes us Catholic and certainly not the only authoritative statements that popes and bishops make. There is tendency among modern men to look for ways out, like the student who wants to know what he should study for the test.
But God does not look at our souls that way. He does not examine if we were faithful to all the infallible statements made by the Church. Christ aks whether we loved his bride as he loves her and whether we were faithful to her, as he is faithful.
A blessed Christmas to all,
Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
But God does not look at our souls that way. He does not examine if we were faithful to all the infallible statements made by the Church. Christ aks whether we loved his bride as he loves her and whether we were faithful to her, as he is faithful.
A blessed Christmas to all,
Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
You are, of course, correct that being a sinner does not disqualify one for membership in the Church. If that were true there would be no members in the Church as we are all sinners. But I still wonder why people who don’t believe in basic, unchangeable truths that are taught by the Church remain Catholic. I don’t mean things like women needing to wear chapel veils. I disagreed with that practice and I don’t even know if it was an official Church teaching. It just seemed unfair and rather silly to me. As a child I always wore a chapel veil; as a teenager I stopped cold turkey but I didn’t leave the Church over that. Later on I had far more serious problems with what was actual Church teaching.
But even when I wasn’t a practicing Catholic and disagreed with many of the Church’s teachings, especially those regarding ordination of women and contraception, deep down inside I still kind of considered myself to be Catholic. I don’t know why. I was raised as a Catholic and maybe I was holding onto what I knew instead of abandoning it to become something I knew nothing about. But my experiences with Catholicism were mostly negative - things like being treated cruelly by the nuns (and priests) at the school I attended, and my father taking us all to Mass and then spending the rest of the day yelling at us and calling us stupid (his favorite word), while my mother kept silent (which IMO meant she was agreeing with what my father said - this turned out to be a incorrect assumption but I was just a kid and she should have corrected him).
That’s why I brought up my thinking process about all this and part of that process was to think that maybe it’s better for them to be in the Church than to be completely apart from it. Still I cringe when I see the “Catholics for Choice” website. Its message is absolutely incorrect and women who procure abortions are excommunicated. These type of websites are very dangerous for Catholics who are teetering on the edge and just about ready to fall.
I noticed you said that the Pope has no army, but aren’t we all members of the Church Militant? I may be completely off base here because I haven’t investigated it yet. What exactly is the Church Militant? I can google and bing it but I always question what appears when I do that, unless it is a quote from the CCC and comes from a source I believe is credible (and even then I double check to make sure that the quote actually comes from the CCC - I have the book). With so many blogs showing up during a search it is easy to state anything one wants to state even thought it is a complete lie.
I agee that we should pray for them. That may be the only tool we have in many cases and it is an extremely powerful tool.
Merry Christmas!!
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Thank you - I am obviously ignorant of much of Catholicism.
P
peary1
Guest
When the pope, together with the Bishops, makes an official statement on matters of Faith and morals, it is considered infallible; that is, it is not error and all of the Faithful must accept it as true. This is one of the charisms of the Teaching Magisterium of the Church.
J
JReducation
Guest
Peary has most of it. Canonizations are also infallible statements and anything that is rooted in Sacred Tradition or scripture.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
peary1
Guest
Peary has most of it. Canonizations are also infallible statements and anything that is rooted in Sacred Tradition or scripture.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
But there’s an important distinction to make between sins against faith and other sins. A person who sins against the virtue of faith (by denying a dogma of the faith) cuts himself off from the Church. If a person murders someone, but keeps the faith, he remains a Catholic. He would be in mortal sin, but he would remain a Catholic. On the other hand, if a person denies a dogma of the faith, not only is he is mortal sin, but he cuts himself off from the Church.
**Mystici Corporis Christi: **"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
- Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. [20] **For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith **and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.
P
peary1
Guest
For those suffering from invincible ignorance, this does not hold.because they have been kept from the Truth by their own denomination. And just because a Catholic or someone in the Church presents a Catholic dogma to them and they reject it, most of the time it is rejected because it is not understood, or how the Church arrived at it.
For Catholic Christians, it is another matter. But here again, there are saints who grappled with dogmatic issues and were never fully convinced of them, such as the Assumption, Immaculate Conception, or the infallibility of the pope. Did this make them any less of a saint in the eyes of the Church? No. But the difference is, they never rejected the possibility of such dogma, they just always had a doubt about it, and even wrote as such.
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
How can someone who was presented with a Catholic Dogma* that they then rejected*, be considered “invincibly ignorant”? Once a person is presented with the teaching, he is no longer* ignorant* of it. He might reject it, but once the doctrine presented to him he not * ignorant *of it, much less invincibly ignorant…
Invincible ignorance is ignorance that cannot be overcome by study.
**St. Thomas: Whether ignorance is a sin: **“I answer that, Ignorance differs from nescience, in that nescience denotes mere absence of knowledge; wherefore whoever lacks knowledge about anything, can be said to be nescient about it: in which sense Dionysius puts nescience in the angels (Coel. Hier. vii). On the other hand, ignorance denotes privation of knowledge, i.e. lack of knowledge of those things that one has a natural aptitude to know. Some of these we are under an obligation to know, those, to wit, without the knowledge of which we are unable to accomplish a due act rightly. Wherefore **all are bound in common to know the articles of faith, and the universal principles of right, and each individual is bound to know matters regarding his duty or state. **Meanwhile there are other things which a man may have a natural aptitude to know, yet he is not bound to know them, such as the geometrical theorems, and contingent particulars, except in some individual case. Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called “invincible,” because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.”
So, if you are speaking of someone who is unable to read, or deserted on an Island, such a person may fall into the category of invincibly ignorant. But just because a person has been led into heresy by his heretical preacher does not excuse him from sin. Every man is duty bound to search for the truth and adhere to it. If he has been presented with the truth by a Catholic and rejected it, not only is the person no longer ignorant of the truth, but he now has another sin to answer for.
Invincible ignorance is probably one of the most misunderstood and abused terms in the Church today. It is used to refer to virtually every person who has not embraced the Catholic faith.
Please provide evidence of one saint willingly rejecting or even publicly questioning a dogma of the faith (a dogma that had been defined prior to their questioning it). Grapling with something *before it has been defined by the Church *is one thing, and does not make someone a heretic. A heretic is one who obstinately denies, or even doubts, a dogma of the faith after it has been defined.
P
PJM
Guest
***Dear friend in Christ,
Your conclusion is correct
BUT not by virtue of the entire Catechesim being “Infallibly professed”…From the current, valid, licit and BINDING Code of Canon Law…
***Can. 749 §1 In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ’s faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.
The CCC falls under this mandate:thumbsup:
§2 The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals; likewise, when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.
§3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.
Can. 750 Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium. All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.
Can. 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic magisterium of their Bishops.
Can. 754 All Christ’s faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which lawful ecclesiastical authority issues for the purpose of proposing doctrine or of proscribing erroneous opinions; this is particularly the case of those published by the Roman Pontiff or by the College of Bishops.
Love and prayers,
Pat
C
char1963
Guest
This is exactly the position I find myself in and the questions I have posted in meetings and greetings. I have some big differences of opinion with the Catholic Church. Does this mean I should leave the Church?
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
No, it means you should bring your opinions in line with what the Church teaches. Don’t you want your intellect to be in line with the truth? Since you surely realize that your opinions are fallible, why not conform them to the infallible teachings of the Church?
The infallible teachings of the Church include not only what has been defined as true, but what has been believed always and everywhere. It is much better to simply accept what the Church teaches, rather than hold to a personal opinion to the contrary.
P
peary1
Guest
Actually, that is not correct. Case in point: Blessed Cardinal Henry Neumann - once an Anglican, but after deep study of the Church’s theology, and touched by God’s grace, converted.
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
"UltimaRatio:
I don’t follow your logic. Just because he converted to the Catholic Church later in life does not mean he was invincibly ignorant of the Church prior to that. While an Anglican, was he unaware of the Catholic Church and what it taught? No, in fact, when he began his study of Church history it was to prove the Catholic Church wrong. He ended by proving it right and converting. But prior to that he was not ignorant of the Church, nor of what it taught. He had been deceived into believing that what the Catholic Church taught was wrong. Fortunately, he decided to look into history for himself and not just follow the lies of his false sect. God sent him actual grace during his studies and he corresponded with them. One thing led to another and he ended up converting. But just because he found out that he had been wrong, it does not mean that he was invincibly ignorant of the truth prior ot that. It just means that he was in error prior to that.
J
JReducation
Guest
Pope John Paul II understood that this is one form of ignorance, when one has never heard the truth. But he also helps us understand, in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, that there is another form of invinsible ignorance, that is when the person’s conscience tells them that what is being presented to them is against God’s commands or a sin. Even though the conscience is incorrectly formed, the person is making an honest judgment based on what he has. This is another form of invinsible ignorance, when one cannot get past what one believes to be true, through no fault of ones own. In this case, it’s actuallly because of one’s faith, even if that faith is incorrectly formed. The person is not held culpable. He is not making a choice for evil. He is choosing what he honestly believes to be the higher good.
That’s why in Ut Unum Sint, John Paul writes that Christ uses these situations as a means to save. Despite the fact that the person is in error, he is acting according to the teaching of the Church, which says that one may never act on a doubtful conscience. His understanding of truth may be flawed, but his moral judgment is correct. Never act on a doubtful conscience. This includes conversion too.
Before you call me a heretic or tell me that you’re right and I’m wrong, don’t bother. I’ve heard that from you before. I know your script.
Have a blessed Christmas,
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
thistle
Guest
A lot of Catholics sadly do not actually know or understand many of the teachings due to poor catechesis.
A way should be found to rectify that, not only by the Church directly, but through friends and family who do know better.
Others, however, are what are called cafeteria Catholics. They pick and choose what teachings they will accept or not. In essence they want God to obey their will because they do not want to obey God’s will as his will conflicts with their sinful life which they wish to continue. The expression cafeteria Catholic is a way to describe those who pick and choose but the reality is that they are heretics and if they die unrepentent then they have condemned themselves to Hell.
- Status