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

[LittleSoldier]

Only the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth as the Deposit of Faith was entrusted to it by Christ. All Church teachings in matters of faith and morals are true and must be accepted by all Catholics. A Catholic who knows the Church teaches something is a sin of grave matter but doesn’t understand the teaching is not let off the hook because of their lack of understanding. If they know the Church teaches a specific thing is a sin of grave matter and they reject it (whether they fully understand it or not) that Catholic commits heresy and consequently is in a state of mortal sin.

Please show me where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church it specifically states what you are saying here.

 

[JReducation]

Only the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth as the Deposit of Faith was entrusted to it by Christ. All Church teachings in matters of faith and morals are true and must be accepted by all Catholics. A Catholic who knows the Church teaches something is a sin of grave matter but doesn’t understand the teaching is not let off the hook because of their lack of understanding. If they know the Church teaches a specific thing is a sin of grave matter and they reject it (whether they fully understand it or not) that Catholic commits heresy and consequently is in a state of mortal sin.

The bold is mine. I want to speak to that point. That is not always the case. It is usually the case. There are times when a lack of understanding can and may mitigate culpability. This is a basic principle of moral theology. This principle deals with maturity. A lack of understanding may be related to immaturity, the inability to make adult decisions, even when one is an adult.

A lack of understanding could be because a person is not a theologian. OK, plain and simple. You do as you’re told. If you’re a big boy you know that you don’t always have to understand to obey.

However, as strange as it sounds, moral theology does make allowances for a lack of understanding that is a sign of a deeper impairment, which is a lack of maturity. The person does not understand, because he misunderstands. He or she may want to do the right thing, but lacks maturity. The person does not know how to recognize the situation or misreads the situation. In that case, he or she may respond or make choices according to his or her level of understanding. The choice may be wrong, but the culpability is mitigated depending on the degree of the immaturity, the degree of the intent to do the right thing, and the gravity of the matter. A perfectly good example is mastubation among older kids and young adolescents.

Moral theology does not hold the 13-year old to the same standards as the 33-year old. The sexual maturity of the 13-year old is not that of an adult. Unfortuantely, some adults never get past adolescence in the area of sexual maturation; but that’s another topic.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

This is not only for this particular sin, but for many sins, one must take into account the affective maturity (immaturity) of the subject.

I hope this helps.

Have a blessed New Year!

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

I hope this helps.

I do to but it seems that when one has an assertion based on the Church’s Magisterial teaching, they often think that they are correct or even infallible in their use of such a teaching. I see this done on this site often, usually one pope’s encyclical versus a later pope’s encyclical in reference to Vatican II. If we are wrong in the use or interpretation, and especially in our reasoning resulting from what the Church states, we are not helping but hindering others as well as ourselves. I think JR, you would agree (this post is not aimed at you) as we have spent time in the trenches of the “Traditional Catholicism” forum.

Humility is a cardinal virtue, pride is the beginning of all sin says St. Thomas Aquinas. Thus, our understanding of what God wants us to gain out of the Church may not be for the person who is being addressed or may see this thread in two weeks or two years. What in Church teaching is infallible is that which we, in prayerful union with God, ascertain is correct for our next action, humbly knowing of confession if we are incorrect, a luxury not always afforded to those we may or may not be helping.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Only the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth as the Deposit of Faith was entrusted to it by Christ. All Church teachings in matters of faith and morals are true and must be accepted by all Catholics. A Catholic who knows the Church teaches something is a sin of grave matter but doesn’t understand the teaching is not let off the hook because of their lack of understanding. If they know the Church teaches a specific thing is a sin of grave matter and they reject it (whether they fully understand it or not) that Catholic commits heresy and consequently is in a state of mortal sin.

Were you born with this understanding or did you experience some sort of epiphany when you saw this idea in print? I disagree with your statement “A Catholic who knows the Church teaches something is a sin of grave matter but doesn’t understand the teaching is not let off the hook because of their lack of understanding.”

When I was in second grade the nun who was my teacher taught us that french kissing was a mortal sin. None of us knew what french kissing was but we knew that a mortal sin was very bad and all of us worried that perhaps we had sinned this way and were doomed to hell. I was also taught that if I needed to sneeze in church during Mass and believed that if I sneezed I would commit a mortal sin and sneezed anyway, then I had committed a mortal sin.

That is basically what I was taught about the Catholic faith. I didn’t understand the Mass because it was in Latin with a tad of Greek and the homilies didn’t make much sense either. I received the Sacraments without knowing what they were or why they were important. I was never taught these things. NEVER. Yet you tell me that I would have been damned even though I was not aware?

I binged “catholic church heresy” and found the following which even I, with my limited intelligence and brain damage due to chronic pain and opiate use was able to comprehend:

"St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. "The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church;** the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness–free choice–is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material.** On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one’s own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of “freely willed”.

Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church’s decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions. Considering that the human intellect can assent only to truth, real or apparent, studied pertinacity — as distinct from wanton opposition — supposes a firm subjective conviction which may be sufficient to inform the conscience and create “good faith”. Such firm convictions result either from circumstances over which the heretic has no control or from intellectual delinquencies in themselves more or less voluntary and imputable.** A man born and nurtured in heretical surroundings may live and die without ever having a doubt as to the truth of his creed. On the other hand a born Catholic may allow himself to drift into whirls of anti-Catholic thought from which no doctrinal authority can rescue him, and where his mind becomes incrusted with convictions, or considerations sufficiently powerful to overlay his Catholic conscience. It is not for man, but for Him who searcheth the mind and heart, to sit in judgment on the guilt which attaches to an heretical conscience. ** (emphasis mine)

newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.html

I emphasized the parts I believe are important to my case. Did you see in a previous post where I stated that I didn’t even know I was a heretic? I can only say that I was a heretic now because I can look at what I did. But when I left the Church I didn’t even know what heresy was. Yet you say this doesn’t matter. OK, fine. Then please look at the last line of the quote. Here it is quite clear that God is the one who judges me, not you. God loves me; God knows what is in my heart; God died for me. FOR ME. I am not afraid of His judgment because I know Him and I want to be with Him.

I won’t go further with this. It has caused me immense pain. I think you are so wrapped up in theology that you can’t see the love of God and that is a shame. God’s love conquers all. That is all I’m going to say.

 

[JReducation]

I agree with Ernest and I would add that we have to be very careful how we use these documents.

1. We do not know the emotional state of the reader. You can push someone right over the edge by telling them that they are going to hell or that they are in danger of hell. That’s not how we are trained to teach the faith. We must learn to teach the faith by watching the maters do it. They are frank, but gentle and not frightening. I would strongly suggest that we observe people like: Fr. Benedict G, Fr. Corapi, Mo. Angelica, Fr. Mitch, Fr. Wade, Fr. Paul, Pope John Paul, Pope Benedict, Mo Teresa. These are all contemporary evangelists, dead and alive. But we can find them on TV or youtube and watch . Above all, listen to their tone and how they encourage, not discourage. They don’t do a lot of threatening.
2. When citing documents we must remember that the writer himself has a personal context. There are things that were said by the Doctors of the Church for which we must ask ourselves, what was he thinking? What was his/her intention? Is this part of a greater work and if so, what is the theme of the work? Is this intended to be a statement of doctrine or is a reflection of the author’s personal spirituality? I remember that we asked all those questions when we read these writing in theology and in the seminary. You just didn’t pull out a quotation and thow it on the table as if it were dinner. They were not meant to be used that way.
3. I would also share with you what I tell my novices. Never say or write anything that you would not say to Jesus himself, much less say it in a tone that you would not use with Jesus himself. Always rememember that you are nothing but an instrument. Never speak about God and about truth without showing kindness, because an instrument is not the master.
4. When posting from popes and saints and doctors, remember that they can and often to appear to contradict each other. Unless you have enough knowledge and information to explain the apparent contradictions, don’t use contradictory documents. It confuses people. Most people do not stop to remember that Pope John Paul II did read Pope Victor I and knows what he said about St. Michael the Archangel. But he has another opinion about it and he feels that he can state an justaposition, because in John Paul’s mind and understanding, Victor’s writing is not a binding one.

I just made up the example. But there are things that are often posted that Pius X wrote and John Paul II wrote and Benedict wrote and then it goes back and forth as to which pope was right. The fact is that all of them are right. Each one wrote for a different audience and from a different perspective. Not everything that flows out of the pen of the popes is binding for all eternity. Most of it is binding until another pope comes along and writes something new on the subject. There are very few things that are so rigid in Church teaching. There are some things that are unchangeable, but on CAF, people seem to believe that everything is binding or nothing is binding. Both extremes are wrong.

Let’s keep the citations and the documenting simple and allow room for disagreement. Disagreement is not always dissent. Sometimes people disagree simply because the wording or the tone strikes them in wrong way. That can happen. Not everything that has been published by the Church is great writing, even if it’s great truth. Some of it is lousy writing and only upsets people, because the writer had much knowledge, but little writing skills.

As St. Elizabeth Ann Seton would say, “All will be clearer in Eternity.” We don’t have to understand it all today.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Were you born with this understanding or did you experience some sort of epiphany when you saw this idea in print? I disagree with your statement “A Catholic who knows the Church teaches something is a sin of grave matter but doesn’t understand the teaching is not let off the hook because of their lack of understanding.”

When I was in second grade the nun who was my teacher taught us that french kissing was a mortal sin. None of us knew what french kissing was but we knew that a mortal sin was very bad and all of us worried that perhaps we had sinned this way and were doomed to hell. I was also taught that if I needed to sneeze in church during Mass and believed that if I sneezed I would commit a mortal sin and sneezed anyway, then I had committed a mortal sin.

That is basically what I was taught about the Catholic faith. I didn’t understand the Mass because it was in Latin with a tad of Greek and the homilies didn’t make much sense either. I received the Sacraments without knowing what they were or why they were important. I was never taught these things. NEVER. Yet you tell me that I would have been damned even though I was not aware?

I binged “catholic church heresy” and found the following which even I, with my limited intelligence and brain damage due to chronic pain and opiate use was able to comprehend:

"St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. "The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church;** the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness–free choice–is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material.** On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one’s own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of “freely willed”.

Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church’s decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions. Considering that the human intellect can assent only to truth, real or apparent, studied pertinacity — as distinct from wanton opposition — supposes a firm subjective conviction which may be sufficient to inform the conscience and create “good faith”. Such firm convictions result either from circumstances over which the heretic has no control or from intellectual delinquencies in themselves more or less voluntary and imputable.** A man born and nurtured in heretical surroundings may live and die without ever having a doubt as to the truth of his creed. On the other hand a born Catholic may allow himself to drift into whirls of anti-Catholic thought from which no doctrinal authority can rescue him, and where his mind becomes incrusted with convictions, or considerations sufficiently powerful to overlay his Catholic conscience. It is not for man, but for Him who searcheth the mind and heart, to sit in judgment on the guilt which attaches to an heretical conscience. ** (emphasis mine)

newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.html

I emphasized the parts I believe are important to my case. Did you see in a previous post where I stated that I didn’t even know I was a heretic? I can only say that I was a heretic now because I can look at what I did. But when I left the Church I didn’t even know what heresy was. Yet you say this doesn’t matter. OK, fine. Then please look at the last line of the quote. Here it is quite clear that God is the one who judges me, not you. God loves me; God knows what is in my heart; God died for me. FOR ME. I am not afraid of His judgment because I know Him and I want to be with Him.

I won’t go further with this. It has caused me immense pain. I think you are so wrapped up in theology that you can’t see the love of God and that is a shame. God’s love conquers all. That is all I’m going to say.

Didn’t I say the stuff that is in bold earlier?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LittleSoldier]

Didn’t I say the stuff that is in bold earlier?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes, you did indeed. Thank you. I was corroborating it by using the words from an well-recognized authority (not that you aren’t an authority - you have helped me more than you will ever know). It’s just corroboration. Nothing more.

God bless you!!

Christina

 

[char1963]

I am actually struggling with this right now. I was very unknowledgable about my own religon. I was wondering if I should leave the Church, so I began to look into what it is I am supposed to believe. As it turns out, the things that I objected to in the beginning ( opposing gay marriage, being against using birth control , priests not being allowed to marry) , I am now willing to consider that the Church may have valid reasons for . However, as I learn more , I have discovered that I am most likely a heretic. Purgatory, Pope’s infalliablility ,Mary’s eternal virginity. I question these fundemental things. None of that is in the Bible. I am against abortion, but I thought ex communication was a formal “kicking out” from the Church. How is the Church going to know someone had an abortion? What if they are truly repentant? If I was to leave the Church, where would I go, since I dont believe any relgion is the “true” religon? I believe that will only happen when Jesus comes back to the earth. How can I believe a religon whose representatvies ( the Popes) authorized things that were contrary to what Jesus taught (Spanish Inquastions)? How can I call myself a Catholic if I am in disagreement with these things, and yet something stops me from leaving. I was able to reconcile these things before, but as I learn more, I feel that I cant do that. Does this mean I should leave the Church?

 

[LittleSoldier]

I am actually struggling with this right now. I was very unknowledgable about my own religon. I was wondering if I should leave the Church, so I began to look into what it is I am supposed to believe. As it turns out, the things that I objected to in the beginning ( opposing gay marriage, being against using birth control , priests not being allowed to marry) , I am now willing to consider that the Church may have valid reasons for . However, as I learn more , I have discovered that I am most likely a heretic. Purgatory, Pope’s infalliablility ,Mary’s eternal virginity. I question these fundemental things. None of that is in the Bible. I am against abortion, but I thought ex communication was a formal “kicking out” from the Church. How is the Church going to know someone had an abortion? What if they are truly repentant? If I was to leave the Church, where would I go, since I dont believe any relgion is the “true” religon? I believe that will only happen when Jesus comes back to the earth. How can I believe a religon whose representatvies ( the Popes) authorized things that were contrary to what Jesus taught (Spanish Inquastions)? How can I call myself a Catholic if I am in disagreement with these things, and yet something stops me from leaving. I was able to reconcile these things before, but as I learn more, I feel that I cant do that. Does this mean I should leave the Church?

From what I have experienced on this thread so far, I would caution you to take anything anyone says without a reference to back them up, with a grain of salt.

Then I would take each objection you have and research it. Very carefully. The Catholic Church bases her teachings on both the Bible and tradition. So just because something is not in the Bible doesn’t mean that it is incorrect.

Personally, I think questioning one’s faith is healthy. It’s what causes us to really learn about something, like I’m learning about heresy. I get the feeling that some people believe that when Truth is presented a million angels appear in the sky, singing and glorifying God. Well that has never happened when I’ve been around to see it.

It’s a difficult process to discover Truth. If I were you (and if I had the chance to do it all over again) I wouldn’t leave the Church. I would remain a member and I would ask question after question to those who know. But be careful - a lot of people claim to know truth and end up teaching something that is completely contrary to what the Church teaches or is just a bit of the truth or is taken out of context.

With CAF we both have a good tool to use. You can present your question as an OP (original post) and people will answer. They will be wrong in many cases but some will be correct. You can also try asking an apologist but I’ve only had one question answered and I’ve asked about twenty.

The CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) is another good resource. And there are many books. I think once in an answer to a question an apologist recommended the book Catholicism for Dummies. I’m sure that other people would have ideas about good books to read about our faith.

I think that excommunication means that a person is not allowed to partake of Communion. I’m not sure, though. And I also believe that a person who is excommunicated can be forgiven. I don’t think there is any sin that God won’t forgive.

There is one thing I am positive about and that is that God loves us and wants us to be with Him. Praying is always good and I would do it as much as I could.

I hope this helps. I know there are a few people on this thread who can give you good answers to your questions. Good luck on your journey!!

 

[distracted]

I think that anyone who rejects Truth is doing so because they don’t see it as Truth. We should pray, with humility, that Truth is evident to everyone.

I disagree. Hitler may not have been guilty in God’s eyes for all the murders he committed. There is evidence (I apologize for not having a source as I read this years ago) that Hitler suffered from manic-depression which is a psychosis. A psychotic person does not process reality correctly and their thought processes are disordered. I’m sure God would know if Hitler were mentally ill when the atrocities were committed and I’m sure God is also aware of any and all factors leading to Hitler’s actions.

Also, what if Hitler confessed and atoned in his last few seconds of life? True, he did commit suicide but that can be seen as further indication of his psychosis. Only God knows the truth.

As only God knows the truth, only God knows whether Hitler was to blame. Only God knows if Hitler’s “blindness” was his own fault.

sin is what takes people to Hell… sin unrepented of… Hitler committed sin, objectively speaking… so i don’t see where that is too complicated…

there is “evidence” that Hitler is in Hell… During exorcisms witnesses have heard his voice speaking through the possessed…

 

[JReducation]

sin is what takes people to Hell… sin unrepented of… Hitler committed sin, objectively speaking… so i don’t see where that is too complicated…

there is “evidence” that Hitler is in Hell… During exorcisms witnesses have heard his voice speaking through the possessed…

I’m not defending HItler. But we have to be careful here. Just as God uses images that we recognize and understand to speak to us, so too does the evil one.

Just a simple example: Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared to Juan Diego as a Mestizo woman wearing the robe and black ribbon of a pregnant woman. This way Juan would recognize her

The evil one can do the same thing. He can use the voice of Popeye, if it serves his purpose.

Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF

 

[TedDC]

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.

Heaven forbid that we should think for ourselves…

 

[char1963]

Thank you LittleSoldier. I pondered on this all day and came to the conclusion that I can still go to Mass but perhaps I should not be partaking of communion, because I am not currently in communion with the Church.

 

[JReducation]

Heaven forbid that we should think for ourselves…

I don’t think that Ultima is saying that we should not think for ourselves, at least I hope not. That would also be in conflict with Church teaching on human rights and religious freedom.

I believe the other way to say what Ultima is saying is the way that St. Augustine says it. Every human being wants what is good. Even a thief wants what is good. Why does he steal? He steals because he believes that the desired outcome is good or that which he desires is good. Why else would anyone steal something that is not good or that does not provide them with some kind of satisfaction?

Since we are oriented toward what is good, the goal must always be to desire what is good for us. To a limited extent we can judge what is good for us. I say limited, because of two realities. First, we often lack objectivity. Second, we lack omniscience. But God, who is totally objective and omniscient, knows what is good for us. He reveals it to us through the Church.

The fullness of truth subsists within the Catholic Church. In other words, the Church is built upon Truth. She cannot mislead, even if she tried. The Church can make mistakes on temporal matters. For example, the Church has made mistakes on political issues. She has made mistakes on issues in the areas of science and culture. But she has never made a mistake in the areas of faith and morals, because what she teaches on this two areas have been revealed by Christ and are safeguarded by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, even if the Church wanted to do so, she cannot speak contrary to what has been revealed.

Now, going back to our freedom to think, Augustine is an excellent example. Here was a man who was genius long before he converted. But he found that even with all of his knowledge, he could not reach the fullness of truth. There was always one more question, one more doubt about human existence and human purpose. It is only when he turns to the Church, as a last ditch measure, that he finds the answers to those questions.

As you can see, he thinks on his own, but his thinking leads him to confer, if you will, with the Church’s teachings. He finds that he must examine his conclusions, because they are lacking. He finds what they are lacking in the truths that have been revealed to the Church. Thus he accommodates his thinking in line with the Church’s thinking, not because the Church demands it, but because in the truths that the Church teaches, he finds the good that God wants for us. No matter how much we try to find what is good for us, we do not possess the vision of God. Therefore, we can never see for ourselves what is perfectly good for us, only God can and he has revealed that to us through the Church.

Our thought processes must lead us to search for the ultimate Good, not just for what is immediately good for us. That is the thinking of the thief. It is very short-sighted. Often our thinking is very short-sighted, even though we may not be thieves. Our thinking may only lead us to see the short-term good, but not the infinite good. Only God can see the infinite good. So we must adapt or we will miss the infinite good that is meant for us. This is what we mean when we say to think with the Church. It is not a matter of blind submission. On the contrary, it is a very informed concurrence between our search for the Good and the answers that are provided for us through the deposit of faith that subsists within the Church.

I hope this helps. Have a blessed New Year’s Eve with your loved ones and may the new year be one of many blessings and joy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LittleSoldier]

sin is what takes people to Hell… sin unrepented of… Hitler committed sin, objectively speaking… so i don’t see where that is too complicated…

there is “evidence” that Hitler is in Hell… During exorcisms witnesses have heard his voice speaking through the possessed…

I don’t think your point about exorcisms should even be discussed in this forum.

God judged Hitler, not you. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t think that Ultima is saying that we should not think for ourselves, at least I hope not. That would also be in conflict with Church teaching on human rights and religious freedom.

I believe the other way to say what Ultima is saying is the way that St. Augustine says it. Every human being wants what is good. Even a thief wants what is good. Why does he steal? He steals because he believes that the desired outcome is good or that which he desires is good. Why else would anyone steal something that is not good or that does not provide them with some kind of satisfaction?

Since we are oriented toward what is good, the goal must always be to desire what is good for us. To a limited extent we can judge what is good for us. I say limited, because of two realities. First, we often lack objectivity. Second, we lack omniscience. But God, who is totally objective and omniscient, knows what is good for us. He reveals it to us through the Church.

The fullness of truth subsists within the Catholic Church. In other words, the Church is built upon Truth. She cannot mislead, even if she tried. The Church can make mistakes on temporal matters. For example, the Church has made mistakes on political issues. She has made mistakes on issues in the areas of science and culture. But she has never made a mistake in the areas of faith and morals, because what she teaches on this two areas have been revealed by Christ and are safeguarded by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, even if the Church wanted to do so, she cannot speak contrary to what has been revealed.

Now, going back to our freedom to think, Augustine is an excellent example. Here was a man who was genius long before he converted. But he found that even with all of his knowledge, he could not reach the fullness of truth. There was always one more question, one more doubt about human existence and human purpose. It is only when he turns to the Church, as a last ditch measure, that he finds the answers to those questions.

As you can see, he thinks on his own, but his thinking leads him to confer, if you will, with the Church’s teachings. He finds that he must examine his conclusions, because they are lacking. He finds what they are lacking in the truths that have been revealed to the Church. Thus he accommodates his thinking in line with the Church’s thinking, not because the Church demands it, but because in the truths that the Church teaches, he finds the good that God wants for us. No matter how much we try to find what is good for us, we do not possess the vision of God. Therefore, we can never see for ourselves what is perfectly good for us, only God can and he has revealed that to us through the Church.

Our thought processes must lead us to search for the ultimate Good, not just for what is immediately good for us. That is the thinking of the thief. It is very short-sighted. Often our thinking is very short-sighted, even though we may not be thieves. Our thinking may only lead us to see the short-term good, but not the infinite good. Only God can see the infinite good. So we must adapt or we will miss the infinite good that is meant for us. This is what we mean when we say to think with the Church. It is not a matter of blind submission. On the contrary, it is a very informed concurrence between our search for the Good and the answers that are provided for us through the deposit of faith that subsists within the Church.

I hope this helps. Have a blessed New Year’s Eve with your loved ones and may the new year be one of many blessings and joy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I’m sorry but right now my hope of a happy new year is down the drain. I am confused and scared and I don’t think God loves me anymore. Sorry.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Heaven forbid that we should think for ourselves…

I know. I’m having some serious problems with this whole thing. I am beginning to believe that I am going to be damned for not understanding what was never presented to me. And I can’t see any way out of it.

I was always taught that questioning one’s faith was good. Now I am so confused I am beginning to think I’m already in hell. Faith is very hard for me. I guess some people are blessed with the ability to see Truth and to have a strong faith in a loving God. But there are probably a lot more people like you and me. Our journey is going to be much harder.

I don’t know what the answer is.

But please don’t give up on the Church. It may be hard for us but I still think the Truth is somewhere there. I feel like I’m drowning in a sea of confusion but I’m still grabbing onto something that has to do with a loving God. That, and the fact that God is the one who judges us, is the only thing that is literally keeping me alive right now.

 

[JReducation]

I’m sorry but right now my hope of a happy new year is down the drain. I am confused and scared and I don’t think God loves me anymore. Sorry.

It is impossible for God not to love us. That would be contrary to his nature. Therefore, it is impossible for God not to love you.

I wish I knew what is confusing you and frigtening you. Since I don’t know what it is, I can only give you an example from my own life. Right now we are very short of money. There was a question as to whether one of our brothers would be able to return to the university after New Year’s, because we don’t have the funds to pay for the semester.

Brother came to me and volunteered to take off a semester and work to make the money to continue later. Since I am the Formation Director he needs my permission to do this. I told him that this could be a solution, but that we needed to pray over it

I know my conscience and my sinfulness. But I also know that God does not leave us orphans, no matter what we may have done. My favorite prayer is the prayer of the thief on the cross, “Remember me.”

To make a long story short, I stood before the San Damiano icon, that spoke to St. Francis and asked the Lord, “Remember me,” and I told him about our need and my concern. About an hour later, my sister-in-law calls to wish me a Happy New Year. We’re chatting and she said that she noticed my voice was a little sad. I told her about Brother X. She turned around and said, “I can lend you guys the money. I can have it reach you by Monday.”

God knows my sins. He knows my weaknesses. He also knows how much I want to do what is right. My feeling is that when we let ourselves free fall into his hands, he does not allow us to crash. We were willing to let God show us what to do and his charity and love were shown to us.

As the psalmist says, “Give thanks to the Lord for he is good; his mercy endures forever.” Let us always remember Jesus’ words to his apostles the morning of his resurrection. They are the same words that Mary said to the children at Fatima, to Bernadette at Lourdes and to Juan Diego in Mexico, “Do not be afraid.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I know. I’m having some serious problems with this whole thing. I am beginning to believe that I am going to be damned for not understanding what was never presented to me. And I can’t see any way out of it.

I was always taught that questioning one’s faith was good. Now I am so confused I am beginning to think I’m already in hell. Faith is very hard for me. I guess some people are blessed with the ability to see Truth and to have a strong faith in a loving God. But there are probably a lot more people like you and me. Our journey is going to be much harder.

I don’t know what the answer is.

But please don’t give up on the Church. It may be hard for us but I still think the Truth is somewhere there. I feel like I’m drowning in a sea of confusion but I’m still grabbing onto something that has to do with a loving God. That, and the fact that God is the one who judges us, is the only thing that is literally keeping me alive right now.

You’re on the right track. Stay there.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LittleSoldier]

You’re on the right track. Stay there.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Why? I’m a sinning heretic who is going to be damned to hell. The God who loves me (and who I love in return) is sending me to hell because I don’t understand Church teachings that I have never seen.