What's the ONE Catholic Doctrine that you disagree with most?

[Tantum_ergo]

**
What you just expressed was never the view of Unam Sanctam, untl after VII : and you know it.**

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, : “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”*

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, :

“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”[iii]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, :

“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”[iv]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, :

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[v]

“*
Excuse me, my friend. Telling me 'this is X and YOU KNOW IT” is rude. If I ‘knew’ it, why would I go to the trouble of posting something else? Do you think I’m lying? You must, because if I “knew it’ and posted otherwise, that would be lying. I don’t like being called a liar. If you thought I was mistaken, then you wouldn’t be telling me “you KNEW it”, you’d be telling me that obviously I 'didn’t know it”.

I stand by what I posted.

And I don’t keep on ‘cut and pasting’ from “traditionalcatholic.net” to prove that ‘Catholics believe X’. If you belonged to your local Republican party and I kept on posting stuff from the John Birch Society to prove that ‘you Republican’ really believe stuff that the majority if not all republicans do NOT believe, you’d be pretty snippy that I was painting all people of a conservative bent with the brush from one extremist group.

So please, cut it out. It’s not really a Christian thing to do.

 

[Peter_J]

Saint Robert Bellarmine (died A.D. 1621): “Outside the Church there is no salvation…therefore in the symbol [Apostles Creed] we join together the Church with the remission of sins: `I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins’…For this reason the Church is compared with the ark of Noah, because just as during the deluge, everyone perished who was not in the ark, so now those perish who are not in the Church.” (De Sacramento Baptismi)

Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 - 604): “Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.” (Moralia)

Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 - 1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Denzinger 423)

Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 - 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)

“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity … This is the Catholic Faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
(Athanasian Creed; quoted and solemnly ratified by Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, session 8, November 22, 1439)

Pope Gregory XVI (AD 1831 – 1846) “Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care”. (Mirari Vos).

Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 - 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)

Pope Leo XII: “It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members … By divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and … this is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.” (Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum, May 5, 1824; paragraph 14)

Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 - 1903): “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus)

“He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.” (Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae)

Pope Saint Pius X (A.D. 1903 - 1914): “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.” (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane)

Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 - 1922): “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)

Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 - 1939): “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. …Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)

Pope Pius XII (Humani Generis: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”

Those were the days, eh? (Also recollect what Dr. Luther wrote concerning the Jews – not that two wrongs make a right of course.)

 

[Expatreprocedit]

The supreme, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction of the pope over the entire church.

Close second, the eternal procession fo the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son equally.

 

[alwayswill]

Excuse me, my friend. Telling me ‘this is X and YOU KNOW IT" is rude. If I ‘knew’ it, why would I go to the trouble of posting something else? Do you think I’m lying? You must, because if I "knew it’ and posted otherwise, that would be lying. I don’t like being called a liar. If you thought I was mistaken, then you wouldn’t be telling me “you KNEW it”, you’d be telling me that obviously I 'didn’t know it".

I stand by what I posted.

And I don’t keep on ‘cut and pasting’ from “traditionalcatholic.net” to prove that ‘Catholics believe X’. If you belonged to your local Republican party and I kept on posting stuff from the John Birch Society to prove that ‘you Republican’ really believe stuff that the majority if not all republicans do NOT believe, you’d be pretty snippy that I was painting all people of a conservative bent with the brush from one extremist group.

So please, cut it out. It’s not really a Christian thing to do.

You are right :
I should not have worded my response in that way.
I apologize:

I stand by the facts of what I posted.

which is

the view you presented is the opposite understanding of the well documented beliefs held for the 6 to 7 CENTURIES leading up to Vatican II

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You are right :
I should not have worded my response in that way.
I apologize:

I stand by what the facts of what I posted.

which is

the view you presented is the opposite understanding of the well documented beliefs held for the 6 to 7 CENTURIES leading up to Vatican II

Apology for the tone accepted.

As for the ‘well documented beliefs’, my understanding of them (and I stand by it) is the understanding of the Church, and your interpretation of them held for ‘6 to 7 centuries’ I hold to be false.

 

[alwayswill]

Apology for the tone accepted.

As for the ‘well documented beliefs’, my understanding of them (and I stand by it) is the understanding of the Church, and your interpretation of them held for ‘6 to 7 centuries’ I hold to be false.

the part I find the most troubling is “every human creature”

I find this as being a false statement
“it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”
That was never taught by Jesus or any Apostle

I find this as being the true statement
“it is NOT absolutely necessary for salvation that ANY human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”

That is in complete agreement with what was taught by Jesus and the Apostles.

 

[commenter]

The supreme, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction of the pope over the entire church.

Close second, the eternal procession fo the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son equally.

Do you disagree with the RCC teaching of the HS from the Father and the Son period, or from the Father and the Son “equally”? Is the Orthodox teaching that there is **some **procession from the Son, but less in some way than from the Father? (Forgive any carelessness in my wording about such as the Trinity).

 

[commenter]

the part I find the most troubling is “every human creature”

I find this as being a false statement
“it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”
That was never taught by Jesus or any Apostle

I find this as being the true statement
“it is NOT absolutely necessary for salvation that ANY human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”

That is in complete agreement with what was taught by Jesus and the Apostles.

Ok, I think Alwayswill has answered the question asked in the thread. I think it is fair for Catholics or anyone to request clarification, but once they have clarified, let’s move on to the next “doctrine they disagree with”. In this kind of thread, Alwayswill, and every other person, does not have to prove they are right, just state they disagree. No one can prove that Alwayswill does ****not ****disagree.

I am surprised no one has so far pointed out Catholic argumentativeness as almost a doctrine, worth disagreeing with.
Me included.

 

[TK421]

Well I don’t disagree with any doctrines, but the one that eludes my human comprehension the most (I think more than the Trinity) is the doctrine of Original Sin.

 

[KarenAnne]

I think the better question is “What doctrine do you have the hardest time following?”

Any faithful Catholic is not going to disagree with God or his church.
But all of us fall short and know all too well our shortcomings.

Sometimes the faith of those who question, disagree and search for answers is stronger than that of someone who blindly follows every rule, doctrine and idea without ever delving into the real meaning and teaching of what they follow.

 

[vz71]

Sometimes the faith of those who question, disagree and search for answers is stronger than that of someone who blindly follows every rule, doctrine and idea without ever delving into the real meaning and teaching of what they follow.

One does not have to disagree or disobey to search out the meaning of a teaching that is not understood.

 

[KarenAnne]

One does not have to disagree or disobey to search out the meaning of a teaching that is not understood.

you are correct: one does not HAVE to, but many do and are still “faithful catholics”

 

[Wannano]

Sometimes the faith of those who question, disagree and search for answers is stronger than that of someone who blindly follows every rule, doctrine and idea without ever delving into the real meaning and teaching of what they follow.

:thumbsup:almost always.

 

[Porknpie]

Sometimes the faith of those who question, disagree and search for answers is stronger than that of someone who blindly follows every rule, doctrine and idea without ever delving into the real meaning and teaching of what they follow.

Karen, this thought leads perhaps to a new thread…

“What is faith?”

And one would need to define what is meant by “rule” or 'idea"

Doctrine is clear.

Disagreement on doctrine is not good. It can be said that one has a hard time following a doctrine personally, but out of obedience one does. One does so because one understands the authority Christ gave his Church, and that he promised to lead it to all truth. Even if our wills and intellect don’t understand. When that happens, you are correct, we need to dive into the reasoning why we believe what we do, so that we can inform our intellect, and propery direct our will.

 

[Sarcelle]

Nevertheless, there are plenty of topics on which the saints and the Church Fathers got it wrong. I was reading one just last night – St. Augustin’s claim that marital sex that was not initiated for the purpose of procreation is a venial sin.

St. Augustine’s opinion has not been elevated to a de fide doctrine of the Church.

Saints can claim all sorts of things. They are not infallible and therefore their opinions are not elevated to dogma.

 

[commenter]

Sometimes the faith of those who question, disagree and search for answers is stronger than that of someone who blindly follows every rule, doctrine and idea without ever delving into the real meaning and teaching of what they follow.

Be careful about depicting others as acting “blindly”. How would you know that?

We have to be aware of our own times, the current bias is always the most dangerous for you and me. There may or may not have been centuries when pressure to conform, meant believing orthodox teaching and authority, hiding any doubts. This is not the era we live in.
The extreme pressure to conform, in 2016, is to question every Christian rule, doctrine, and idea. The hostility is against those who believe, and accept religious authority.

To put it another way, the media practically ****defines ****“faith” as questioning, disagreeing, and searching for answers. If you do that, your “faith” is strong. Otherwise, your faith is blind, in the eyes of the secular culture. You don’t fit in.

On the one hand, Christians need to be charitable to those who are questioning, disagreeing, and searching for answers. We can’t judge the individual. We can judge the secular society that glorifies that, as a sailor is aware of the dominant wind at the moment, so we can try to avoid being blown off course.

 

[commenter]

you are correct: one does not HAVE to, but many do and are still “faithful catholics”

How would they know they are “faithful Catholics”? Because of self perception? Suppose a man makes his own yardstick, out of rubber, with no permanent length; so 36 inches can be squeezed to be no longer than his hand, or stretched to be taller than his height. Would you trust his yardstick, or would you say measurements have to be calibrated by something objective, outside himself?

If all yardsticks were subjective, then “faithful Catholics” would be redundant, because everyone would be faithful, and everyone would be Catholic.

 

[DaveBj]

St. Augustine’s opinion has not been elevated to a de fide doctrine of the Church.

Saints can claim all sorts of things. They are not infallible and therefore their opinions are not elevated to dogma.

I would say that it was at least a small-t teaching of the Church in the beginning of the 5th century. The evidence for my claim is, first that he openly and frequently proclaimed it, particularly in his writings against the Pelagians, and second, that no one in authority contradicted him.

 

[Peter_J]

I would say that it was at least a small-t teaching of the Church in the beginning of the 5th century. The evidence for my claim is, first that he openly and frequently proclaimed it, particularly in his writings against the Pelagians, and second, that no one in authority contradicted him.

Perhaps they were uncertain as to whether he was right or wrong. (Edit: admittedly that may go against the way some people picture Catholic authorities. )

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Karen, this thought leads perhaps to a new thread…

“What is faith?”

And one would need to define what is meant by “rule” or 'idea"

Doctrine is clear.

Dogma is clear, Teachings not so much.
Unfortunately dogmas are few and teachings of various degrees of required assent and ambiguity, “certainty” and “traditional pedigree” abound. Some teachings are to be assented to more as a matter of discipline than theology (i.e. the Pope has decided legitimate theological debate has become too divisive…eg all contracepting is wrong).
Limbo and Jesus not being born through the birth canal are examples of a traditional teaching of dubious pedigree. That Mary did not die before her Assumption is a doctrine that may be rejected and in fact has no tradition behind it.

“Doctrine” seems more a coined word than anything else. It tends to get used when someone wants to promote a “teaching” to a level of clarity and infallibility than really exists.

Significant Church teachings are still a work in progress.