What in Church teaching is infallable and must be believed and what is not?

[JReducation]

Where do such things leave the Catholics (and I know quite a few) who are in line with 90% of the Church’s teachings but cannot and will not accept the church’s position on some seemingly vital things such as: Papal authority, abortion position, contraception, the assumption, the perpetual virginity of Mary or her immaculate conception, or the ordination of women. Are they to stay and be in disagreement (which these individuals have not budged from in 10, 20, 30, or even 50 years) or should they leave the church?

They have already left the Church. Such a person is no longer in communion with the Catholic Church. Therefore, should not approach the altar for communion. They may still be physically present, but they no longer belong to the Church. They have what is known as an imperfect communion with the Church.

An imperfect communion with the Church is when one posesses and subscribes to some of the truths of the faith, but not to all. This is the case of the Reformation communities. In the case of the Reformation communities, they are not heretics, because this is what they inherited from their forefathers. In the case of a Catholic, he or she is a heretic, because these were not the beliefs that they inherited. These are their own beliefs that they want to impose on the Church or beliefs that they choose to deny.

We must pray for people of any faith who deny the truths that they have come to know.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

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.

Defensive, aren’t we? I was only going to ask you to support your assertion with a quote. I’ve seen you make a lot of assertions, but I don’t think I have every seem you back one up with a quote. So, if you think invincible ignorance means something other than what St. Thomas said (see the quote I provided), please provide a quote to support your position.

Your “explanation” includes in the category of invincibly ignorant those who hear the truth and reject it, for whatever reason. I guess this would also include the Pharisees who couldn’t quite bring themselves to accept Jesus. What did our Lord say to these “invincibly ignorant men”? He said “if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sins”.

It should also be noted that invincible ignorance will not save anyone. A person must have faith to be saved.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

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. …

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.

Since you didn’t provide a source for your assertion, I decided to locate the quote myself. And, as I expected, John Paul II didn’t say what you claimed (unless there is another quote I couldn’t find, and I’m pretty sure there’s not).

What I did find in Crossing the Threshold of Hope (pg 188-192) addresses a few of the points you raised above, but he certainly doesn’t say what you claimed he said. He begins by saying that, in accord with what St. Thomas taught, a person is bound to follow their erring reason (erring conscience). That is correct. St. Thomas discusses this in the Summa (see #5). He teaches that a person is bound to follow their conscience even when it is in error. Then, in the next section (#6) St. Thomas explains that following the erring conscience does not excuse from sin. What this means is that a person who has an erring conscience is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. He sins if he doesn’t follow his conscience and he sins if he does. That is why error is such a grave evil, and why the Church always took such a strong stand against heresy.

Now, you claimed that John Paul II said invincible ignorance included, not only those who were ignorance of the truth due to no fault of their own, but also applied “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”.

This is what the Pope actually said was this:

John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope:* “Nonetheless, it often happens that conscience errs through invincible ignorance, without, for this reason, losing its dignity. But this cannot be said of the an who does very little to search for the truth and good, or when through the habit of sin consceince itself becomes almost blind”* (Pg 191-192).

That is the only quote I could find in the entire book where he addressed invincible ignornace, and nowhere does he say that a person who is presented with the truth and rejects it is invincibly ignorant. In fact, he even says *invincible ignorance *does not apply to the person who does little to search for the truth, or one who has blinded their consceince through sin. In this, John Paul II seems to be in agreement with St. Thomas who I quoted as the authority from my assertion, which you then disagreed with.

So, the ball is now in your court. If you did not completely make up what you asserted John Paul II said in Threshold of Hope, please provide the quote to support your assertion. Or if you were simply mistaken (which may be the case), you can simply say so. But be sure not to provide a quote saying that a person cannot be forced to believe, or one that says an erring conscience binds, since that is not the subject we are discussing. Just the quote showing where John Paul II taught what you claimed he taught about invincible ignorance.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Since you didn’t provide a source for your assertion, I decided to locate the quote myself. And, as I expected, John Paul II didn’t say what you claimed (unless there is another quote I couldn’t find, and I’m pretty sure there’s not).

What I did find in Crossing the Threshold of Hope (pg 188-192) addresses a few of the points you raised above, but he certainly doesn’t say what you claimed he said. He begins by saying that, in accord with what St. Thomas taught, a person is bound to follow their erring reason (erring conscience). That is correct. St. Thomas discusses this in the Summa (see #5). He teaches that a person is bound to follow their conscience even when it is in error. Then, in the next section (#6) St. Thomas explains that following the erring conscience does not excuse from sin. What this means is that a person who has an erring conscience is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. He sins if he doesn’t follow his conscience and he sins if he does. That is why error is such a grave evil, and why the Church always took such a strong stand against heresy.

Now, you claimed that John Paul II said invincible ignorance included, not only those who were ignorance of the truth due to no fault of their own, but also applied *“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”.

This is what the Pope actually said was this:

John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope:* “Nonetheless, it often happens that conscience errs through invincible ignorance, without, for this reason, losing its dignity. But this cannot be said of the an who does very little to search for the truth and good, or when through the habit of sin consceince itself becomes almost blind*” (Pg 191-192).

That is the only quote I could find in the entire book where he addressed invincible ignornace, and nowhere does he say that a person who is presented with the truth and rejects it is invincibly ignorant. In fact, he even says *invincible ignorance *does not apply to the person who does little to search for the truth, or one who has blinded their consceince through sin. In this, John Paul II seems to be in agreement with St. Thomas who I quoted as the authority from my assertion, which you then disagreed with.

So, the ball is now in your court. If you did not completely make up what you asserted John Paul II said in Threshold of Hope, please provide the quote to support your assertion. Or if you were simply mistaken (which may be the case), you can simply say so. But be sure not to provide a quote saying that a person cannot be forced to believe, or one that says an erring conscience binds, since that is not the subject we are discussing. Just the quote showing where John Paul II taught what you claimed he taught about invincible ignorance.

I never claimed to be quoting. I was interpreting it. Actually, you did find the right quote. But the nuance that you’re giving it is not the same that others give it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

This is what the Pope actually said was this:

John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope:* “Nonetheless, it often happens that conscience errs through invincible ignorance, without, for this reason, losing its dignity. But this cannot be said of the an who does very little to search for the truth and good, or when through the habit of sin consceince itself becomes almost blind*” (Pg 191-192).

So, the ball is now in your court. If you did not completely make up what you asserted John Paul II said in Threshold of Hope, please provide the quote to support your assertion. Or if you were simply mistaken (which may be the case), you can simply say so. But be sure not to provide a quote saying that a person cannot be forced to believe, or one that says an erring conscience binds, since that is not the subject we are discussing. Just the quote showing where John Paul II taught what you claimed he taught about invincible ignorance.

You foiund the right quote, but your nuance is different from that of theologians. There are key words in that citation. “[one]who does very little to search for the truth” is very important. We cannot always assume that those who hear the Christian message are not doing any searching for truth. Even when people search for truth, they may not be able to see it.

There is another point “through the habit of sin conscience itself becomes almost blind” is not referring to the lack of knowledge of truth, but a habitual immoral life. When a person habitually engages in immoral actions and choices, one becomes immune. A very good example would be corruption. Most corrupt people have a very difficult time with the social teachings of the Church, because their lifestyle and choices have rendered their consciences almost dormant. When conscience grows dormant through the practice of sin, it is very difficult for the person to see truth. This is a basic psychological principle. You become so used to something that you begin to forget that there is something better. In this case, the person has no awareness of or desire for truth. The person is morally culpable of the initial siin that led them into this moral void.

I really don’t want to play ping pong with you or anyone else on this question. That’s not what we’re here to do. We should come here to grow in the spiritual life. The answers to the question on the thread are deeper than this point. The answers should lead us to the union of the soul with the Divine.

Let’s get back to those points, because they are essential to the soul’s journey into God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LittleSoldier]

Peary has most of it. Canonizations are also infallible statements and anything that is rooted in Sacred Tradition or scripture.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

OK, I have a (probably dumb) question. When these statements are made, is the person stating them infallible at that time, or are the statements themselves infallible?

I know it’s a dumb question, sorry.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

I am very confused and somewhat frightened by your last statement because in the past I was a “Cafeteria Catholic” and one of the worst kind - I was smug about it, yet at the same time I did honestly believe that if I followed the two Commandments given us by Christ that I would be saved. I was baptized as a Catholic and raised as a Catholic yet my experiences with Catholicism were so horrible that I wouldn’t stay in the Church. I tried to be the best person I could be and it’s hard for me to accept that God who loves me and I love in return would allow one such as me to go to hell.

Are you saying that I was a heretic and would have been damned to hell if I had died during this period in my life? Because if you are right I have every right to be absolutely terrified. And I don’t want to be terrified of a loving God.

Where does the Church teach this? I thought that only those with mortal sins go to hell.

 

[JReducation]

OK, I have a (probably dumb) question. When these statements are made, is the person stating them infallible at that time, or are the statements themselves infallible?

I know it’s a dumb question, sorry.

The statement is infallible. This means that the statement is absolute truth, without any possibility of error. When we say that popes are infallible, an easier way of saying the same thing would be to say that in matters of faith and morals, a pope can make a statement that is absolute truth without any chance of error.

Does that help or confuse more?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I am very confused and somewhat frightened by your last statement because in the past I was a “Cafeteria Catholic” and one of the worst kind - I was smug about it, yet at the same time I did honestly believe that if I followed the two Commandments given us by Christ that I would be saved. I was baptized as a Catholic and raised as a Catholic yet my experiences with Catholicism were so horrible that I wouldn’t stay in the Church. I tried to be the best person I could be and it’s hard for me to accept that God who loves me and I love in return would allow one such as me to go to hell.

Are you saying that I was a heretic and would have been damned to hell if I had died during this period in my life? Because if you are right I have every right to be absolutely terrified. And I don’t want to be terrified of a loving God.

No one can guarantee who goes to hell or not. There is what we call objective morality. We can say that objectively speaking a person who is in a grave state of sin and chooses to remain in that state is choosing to live without God. Therefore, if that person should die, they will continue to exist without God, which is hell.

That being said, this is objective. The Church and no individual has any way of knowing what happens between the soul and God at the moment of death. Therefore, you will always hear the Church speak of those who go to heaven (ie. saints) and not the damned. We don’t know who the damned are. We do know who the saints are. We know them by name.

For example, some people have tried to say that Stalin, Hitler, Caesar, Herod, etc are in hell. But the Church has never made such statements. Those statements are made by private individuals, not official statements from the Church. Objectively they committed very evil actions. However, we have no idea what happened between the soul and God at the moment of death.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

I am very confused and somewhat frightened by your last statement because in the past I was a “Cafeteria Catholic” and one of the worst kind - I was smug about it, yet at the same time I did honestly believe that if I followed the two Commandments given us by Christ that I would be saved. I was baptized as a Catholic and raised as a Catholic yet my experiences with Catholicism were so horrible that I wouldn’t stay in the Church.

Are you saying that I was a heretic and would have been damned to hell if I had died during this period in my life? Because if you are right I have every right to be absolutely terrified.

The Mercy of God, something often overlooked in the quest for orthodox interpretation of Church Magisterial teaching and rules, would not have let you get to the point of final damnation without a chance of accepting His salvation. If a sparrow fail to fall from the sky without the Father and if the hairs of your head are all numbered, then your journey is dependent on your acceptance now, not then and certainly not postponed till later.

St. Faustina writes that Jesus said He calls three times to the sinner to repent at the hour of death. As “God is in the whisper”, it is important to be open to the stillness of God and not arrogant, worried, or indifferent.

 

[JReducation]

The Mercy of God, something often overlooked in the quest for orthodox interpretation of Church Magisterial teaching and rules, would not have let you get to the point of final damnation without a chance of accepting His salvation. If a sparrow fail to fall from the sky without the Father and if the hairs of your head are all numbered, then your journey is dependent on your acceptance now, not then and certainly not postponed till later.

St. Faustina writes that Jesus said He calls three times to the sinner to repent at the hour of death. As “God is in the whisper”, it is important to be open to the stillness of God and not arrogant, worried, or indifferent.

This was beautiful. It helped me a great deal. Thank you for posting this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LittleSoldier]

The statement is infallible. This means that the statement is absolute truth, without any possibility of error. When we say that popes are infallible, an easier way of saying the same thing would be to say that in matters of faith and morals, a pope can make a statement that is absolute truth without any chance of error.

Does that help or confuse more?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Your answer helps a lot. Thank you!! I thought that was that way it was but I wasn’t sure.

 

[JReducation]

Your answer helps a lot. Thank you!! I thought that was that way it was but I wasn’t sure.

Lest we forget, the infallibility of the pope is not about him, but about Christ. Christ does not lie. It is impossible for him to lie, because he loves us. Therefore, we must take example from this great gift that God has given to the Church. The Church can only teach truth, even when we are steaped in sin. As members of the Church, we must always speak the truth, despite our sinfulness.

But keep one thing in mind. Truth must be spoken with great humility. As St. Paul says, "If I speak the truth, but have no charity . . . " (1Cor 13). Never preach truth, until you feel charity toward your audience.

When the Church proclaims an infallible truth, she does so with great love and joy, never with bitterness or using unkind words or tones. Great truths are sources of great joy. Those who posess these truths must proclaim them with great joy and concern for the good of those who will hear them.

Truth is not spoken for the sake of proving a point, but for the sake of showing love. God reveals truth so that through knowledge of truth we may come to a knowledge of love. Truth, without love as its goal, is just interesting information.

The Church’s infallibility is an expression of God’s charity to man. God reveals truth to man, because he loves man and wants man to know what he knows, love what he loves, and be where he is.

Please pray for my soul!

Br. JR, OSF

 

[thistle]

I am very confused and somewhat frightened by your last statement because in the past I was a “Cafeteria Catholic” and one of the worst kind - I was smug about it, yet at the same time I did honestly believe that if I followed the two Commandments given us by Christ that I would be saved. I was baptized as a Catholic and raised as a Catholic yet my experiences with Catholicism were so horrible that I wouldn’t stay in the Church. I tried to be the best person I could be and it’s hard for me to accept that God who loves me and I love in return would allow one such as me to go to hell.

Are you saying that I was a heretic and would have been damned to hell if I had died during this period in my life? Because if you are right I have every right to be absolutely terrified. And I don’t want to be terrified of a loving God.

Where does the Church teach this? I thought that only those with mortal sins go to hell.

First let me echo the comments of other posters when they say that only God knows (not us) who is saved or not.
However, we can say that a Catholic who dies in an unrepented state of mortal sin will go to Hell.
We can also say that a Catholic who rejects one or more of the Church teachings has committed heresy which is a mortal sin and again such a person if they were to die unrepentent then they would go to Hell.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

You foiund the right quote, but your nuance is different from that of theologians. There are key words in that citation. “[one]who does very little to search for the truth” is very important. We cannot always assume that those who hear the Christian message are not doing any searching for truth. Even when people search for truth, they may not be able to see it.

But that is not what the Pope said All he said is that a person who does little to search for the truth cannot be considered invincibly ingorant, which is exactly right… And why is that so? Because invincible ignorance means ignorance through no fault of their own. If they have not taken sufficient measures to search for the truth, they are at fault. But nowhere does the Pope say that a person who hears the truth and rejects it can be considered invincibly ignorance.

The reason such a person is not invincibly ignorant is very obvious. Once a person hears the truth, they are no longer ignorant of it. They might reject it, but they are no ignorant of it. As soon as the truth is presented to the intellect the will chooses between accepting it as true, or rejecting it. As soon as teh truth is made known to them, they have a moral obligation to accept it. And the more often the truth is presented, and the more clearly it is presented, the greater their obligation to accept it.

lmost everyone (myself included) has family members who have died with no external manifestations of accepting the truth, but it is wrong to distort the teaching of the Church so as to make ourselves “feel” better. Instead, we should accept what the Church teaches and pray every day that God - who is outside of time and can apply our prayers to any point in time - will give our relative(s) the grace of conversion at the moment of their death. I do this almost every singe day for my grandfather in particular since he gave no external signs of converting prior to death.
JR:

There is another point “through the habit of sin conscience itself becomes almost blind” is not referring to the lack of knowledge of truth, but a habitual immoral life. When a person habitually engages in immoral actions and choices, one becomes immune. … The person is morally culpable of the initial sin that led them into this moral void.

So, I guess Hitler wasn’t guilty in God’s eyes for murdering all the people he did. After all, since his conscience had been blinded through repeated sin, he was “immune” from future guilt. I’m going to avoid addressing that point. My only comment is to say that such people are also not invincibly ignorant. That was what the Pope meant. Since they their conscience was virtually dead, they cannot be considered *invincibly ignorant *. Why? Because their their blindness is due to their own fault. As a consequence, they will be unable to hear (accept) the truth. Such people are on the broad road to perdition and if they die in that state they will be lost.

Sins against purity are said to be the most blinding of all sins. Given the amount of impurity in the world today (pornagraphy avaible to everyone who has a computer), it would seem that this probably why many if not most reject the truth and remain outside the Church.

 

[Kay_Cee]

First let me echo the comments of other posters when they say that only God knows (not us) who is saved or not.
However, we can say that a Catholic who dies in an unrepented state of mortal sin will go to Hell.
We can also say that a Catholic who rejects one or more of the Church teachings has committed heresy which is a mortal sin and again such a person if they were to die unrepentent then they would go to Hell.

You need to learn Church teaching.

Heresy is not necessarily a mortal sin. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be met:

1. The sin must be grave
2. You must know it is a grave sin
3. You must give deliberate consent to committing it

(See CCC #1857)

Heresy, while grave, may be committed without full knowledge or deliberate consent.

I hope you’re not rejecting this Church teaching since that would make you a heretic.

 

[LittleSoldier]

First let me echo the comments of other posters when they say that only God knows (not us) who is saved or not.
However, we can say that a Catholic who dies in an unrepented state of mortal sin will go to Hell.
We can also say that a Catholic who rejects one or more of the Church teachings has committed heresy which is a mortal sin and again such a person if they were to die unrepentent then they would go to Hell.

So are you saying that an adult who was baptized as a Catholic (before she was able to say “no”) and has that Catholic faith shoved down her throat against her will and is shown nothing but cruelty by the nuns in the school she is forced to attend and later on finds out that a priest to whom she confessed her sins was molesting two boys in her class and has a father (Catholic) who goes to Mass every Sunday and then spends the rest of the day screaming at his children, telling them how stupid they are, and a mother (Catholic) who does nothing to stop her husband but smacks her child across the face so many times that the child develops a jaw disorder and is in chronic pain for the rest of her life and she also whips that child with a plastic belt when the child is in First Grade - BUT, remember that child is baptized as a Catholic - if that person leaves the Church in order to find Truth and believes she has found it in the two Commandments of Christ and does her utmost best to be a good Christian, it does no good at all because she is a heretic and will be damned to hell??

I don’t believe you. I have looked it up in the CCC and what I have learned is that in order to choose hell (it is a choice - God does not damn us, we damn ourselves) one must be living without God in a state of mortal sin. In order for a sin to be mortal “three conditions must together be met: Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” (CCC 1857) (emphasis mine)

This means that in order for me to be damned to hell for being a heretic I would have to, first, be guilty of a grave sin (which I admit I was); second, I would have to know that I was committing a grave sin (I didn’t know); and third, I would have to give my full and deliberate consent to committing this grave sin (which I didn’t do as I didn’t know it was a sin at all).

I only meet the first criterion. I do not meet the second and third. Ergo, I did not commit a mortal sin and would never have been damned to hell by a loving God or even choose to go to hell as my desire was to be with God.

Making a blanket statement that heretics go to hell, is in itself rather heretical. Ask Father Feeny about it - he did something quite similar.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Lest we forget, the infallibility of the pope is not about him, but about Christ. Christ does not lie. It is impossible for him to lie, because he loves us. Therefore, we must take example from this great gift that God has given to the Church. The Church can only teach truth, even when we are steaped in sin. As members of the Church, we must always speak the truth, despite our sinfulness.

But keep one thing in mind. Truth must be spoken with great humility. As St. Paul says, "If I speak the truth, but have no charity . . . " (1Cor 13). Never preach truth, until you feel charity toward your audience.

When the Church proclaims an infallible truth, she does so with great love and joy, never with bitterness or using unkind words or tones. Great truths are sources of great joy. Those who posess these truths must proclaim them with great joy and concern for the good of those who will hear them.

Truth is not spoken for the sake of proving a point, but for the sake of showing love. God reveals truth so that through knowledge of truth we may come to a knowledge of love. Truth, without love as its goal, is just interesting information.

The Church’s infallibility is an expression of God’s charity to man. God reveals truth to man, because he loves man and wants man to know what he knows, love what he loves, and be where he is.

Please pray for my soul!

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you again. You have made it very clear to me and in quite a beautiful way. Several times I have had non Catholics tell me that we are wrong because we say “the pope is infallible” which is, of course, quite incorrect and I’ve tried my best to explain infallibility to them. I now have a greater understanding of infallibility which I can use to explain Church teaching. Your way of explaining it is far superior to the way I used to use.

I will indeed pray for your soul. Please pray for mine!!

 

[distracted]

Where do such things leave the Catholics (and I know quite a few) who are in line with 90% of the Church’s teachings but cannot and will not accept the church’s position on some seemingly vital things such as: Papal authority, abortion position, contraception, the assumption, the perpetual virginity of Mary or her immaculate conception, or the ordination of women. Are they to stay and be in disagreement (which these individuals have not budged from in 10, 20, 30, or even 50 years) or should they leave the church?

who cares if they don’t want to submit to the Church. They are either ignornat of how the Church is THE Church established by Chirst and/or thye don’t want to comply with all the teachings because they just don’t want to… uh… belive “hard” things…

anyone who doens’t accept the teaching on abortion is NOT Catholic … My dfinition of Catholic is someone who believes as the Catholic Church teaches & attmepts to practice that… a no brainer definition… THE definition…

 

[distracted]

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.

yes but which of the teachings fits inot that category? someone said the abortion thing doesn’t… or maybe i am not remembering correctly…

then there is the birth control thing…

female priests…

etc