What is Required for Belief?

[truthseekerjay]

And, yet, here you come, questioning what Jesus meant about Church authority, despite the plain words that he used.

Please don’t assume that the reason I’m on this forum or that I inquire about Roman Catholic teachings is because I subconsciously believe that it’s the truth. I’m also going on Eastern Orthodox and Protestant forums to determine why we don’t settle our differences. If I can find legit Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian Church of the East forums, I would inquire on those as well. I’m here to question the Roman Catholic interpretation of Church authority. To determine what Jesus meant about Church authority, I think that we must look beyond the Roman Catholic Church.

True. Isn’t it nice that we have a visible Church who can provide these clarifications? It’s a whole lot better than a bunch of people reading and interpreting the Scriptures for themselves. How can they understand the Scriptures without a Spirit-led authority to explain it to them? (Acts 8:29-31).

This was your response to my statement: I can see that clarifications may ALSO BE NEEDED for the Catechism and ANY other statements made by Roman Catholic representatives throughout the centuries.

As for the Pope Francis-atheist situation, the Roman Catholic Church was able to provide the clarifications. However, if we want to question the use of Bible verses to support the idea that the RC Church is infallible (which is what non Roman Catholic Christians should do), I think it would be more credible if someone other than a representative of the RC Church or if historical evidence provided the clarification. If a person were on trial for perjury, it would probably be wise to have someone/something other than that person on trial provide evidence.

The Vatican rep didn’t question anything. He merely explained what the word “redeemed” means.

Call it what you like. My point is that a light bulb turned on in that representative’s head causing him to feel that whatever Pope Francis expressed was NOT ENOUGH. If the representative is allowed to have that light bulb turn on, why can’t I? I’m not purposely trying to detach from the RC Church and in fact, I believe a lot of the theology presented by the RC and EO Churches. However, in light of the facts that there will be non Roman Catholics in the invisible Church (ie Protestants, Old Testament characters), that there were councils throughout Church history to settle differences between Christian centers, that human information transmission isn’t perfect, etc., I’m led to believe that Christendom isn’t limited to Roman Catholicism and we SHOULD NOT just accept everything the RC Church teaches.

The Vatican representative felt that Pope Francis’s statement required a follow up and he had reason to feel that way. I feel that the Catechism and other statements made by the RC Church may need to be followed up also and I HAVE REASON to feel that way as well. For the Vatican representative, he had the follow up ready. I do not unfortunately. However, this doesn’t mean that the light bulb can’t turn on in my head.

I accept the Church. The teachings are just along for the ride. There have been many instances where I was mistaken about what the Church teaches. I believed what I thought the Church teaches. I remain in good standing (and free from sin) even though I am mistaken. When the truth of the matter becomes apparent to me, I reform my thoughts - I don’t stubbornly cling to my old opinion.

I’m still having trouble understanding what Roman Catholics mean by accepting the Church. Since we can easily deceive ourselves, how do you assure yourself that you truly accept the Church?

Here’s a scenario. I know that in Buddhism and Hinduism, their concept of God isn’t as limited as the Abrahamic religions and they can incorporate other gods into their faith. Suppose the only exposure that a Buddhist or Hindu to Christianity was what Pope Francis said about atheists and that he, for some reason, didn’t hear the clarification by the Vatican representative. He starts thinking that maybe Jesus isn’t that bad and accepts the Church. Would this count as acceptance?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Here’s a scenario. I know that in Buddhism and Hinduism, their concept of God isn’t as limited as the Abrahamic religions and they can incorporate other gods into their faith. Suppose the only exposure that a Buddhist or Hindu to Christianity was what Pope Francis said about atheists and that he, for some reason, didn’t hear the clarification by the Vatican representative. He starts thinking that maybe Jesus isn’t that bad and accepts the Church. Would this count as acceptance?

Yes, of course. As I said, we are not required to be correct in our understanding of Church teaching. When the truth of the matter became known to this person (hopefully through RCIA - that is, after all, WHY the Church does RCIA), he must decide whether to accept this truth or cling to his previous misunderstanding (or reject Catholicism outright).

That is where the rubber meets the road.

Again, I encourage you to open a thread to discuss this. I feel this discussion is off-topic for this thread, and I will not participate further in it here. I welcome the chance to explore these questions in a thread dedicated to these topics.

 

[jmcrae]

Ok so, and correct me if I am wrong…There is always only possible answer: The church is right on faith and morals.

Correct. And actually, it is God who is always right on faith and morals, and the Church is merely transmitting His message to us, with the gift of infallibility that was given to St. Peter by Jesus.

If I disagree, I must be wrong…I can disagree and simply submit to the church so long as I admit that I must be wrong.

This would be the wrong approach. Instead, say, "The Church is saying something that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me just at the moment. I had always thought one thing, but now it seems to me that the Church is saying something opposite to what I thought was true.

Let me ask more questions and find out more about this.

First, let me make sure I understand what it is that the Church seems to be saying. It may be that I have misunderstood or misheard, or that the person telling me this doesn’t have all the facts. What does it say on this subject in the Catechism? What does my parish priest think? What does my Religion teacher think?

Let me find encyclicals and teachings that will open the way for me to see how the Church arrived at this understanding of the issue. Let me examine myself, and find out how I arrived at my opinion - perhaps my reason for believing this other thing was more based on emotions than on reality."

I can’t ever take the position: I am right, the church is wrong. That is what I am gathering from this.

Right.

But what exactly is a required belief vs. just something the church admits could be wrong. For instance, if the church openly supports immigration policies I don’t agree with…Do Catholics have to accept that the same way they do when the church says Jesus is God? I am sure they don’t, but then I don’t understand where they draw the line between required teachings and not required teachings.

Immigration policies are neither moral nor doctrinal - they are political. You are free to disagree with “the Church” - which I assume is your local Bishop, in this case - on political issues.

You would not be free to disagree that God loves the poor, or that we have a duty to welcome the stranger, but the manner in which we carry those things out can be debated, for sure. And I doubt that the Vatican has any stance one way or another on how nations should conduct their internal business regarding who is welcome to seek citizenship, and who is not, as long as no moral law is violated (ie: they aren’t being killed or deliberately placed in physical danger).