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

[MartinJordan]

Well, yes, but the source is Christ himself. He revealed the concept of trinity of persons in that he addressed God as Father, made defining statements about the Holy Spirit, and defined himself as the Son of God. How we are to understand these concepts was the work of the early Church, to whom Christ gave the authority to decide matters of faith and morals. So, although the concept of the Trinity is certainly in the Scriptures, even in OT passages when read in the light of the NT, it wasn’t defined until AD 325, 360, and 431, at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, respectively. Many of the foundational doctrines concerning the nature of God were defined by the Church to combat heresies that arose in the early Church.

Exactly. I’ll go further to say that it was Jesus who due to the Eucharistic Feast he instituted, we have a Bible. Without the Eucharist there could never have been the New Testament.

MJ

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I think that in concocting the definition of infallibility to be both 'truth expressed perfectly" (which of course is possible with God) to be combined with 'therefore understood perfectly by humans) which is NOT possible as we are not God, you are making a critical mistake.

Infallibility does not mean that a truth is both expressed perfectly and understood perfectly. It means that what God has revealed is perfectly true, and to the best of our human and therefore limited capacity we are capable of understanding that truth, and that what God has given to us as Truth will never be changed by fallible humanity into ‘not truth’.

The Trinity (Three Divine Persons in one God) is an infallible revealed truth. Do we understand the Doctrine perfectly? No we do not. Do we understand though that Trinity, meaning three, will thus never be changed into a doctrine whereby God will be revealed as either the Dynamic Duo or the Fab Four? yes we understand that. The doctrine of the Trinity is thus infallible. Revealed Truth that will not change, but that we, as human beings, cannot fully understand in the way that God Himself understands it, but for all that, is as ‘true’ as can be

Again, we are talking about the claim to teach infallibly. Teaching requires both a teacher and a student.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not “truth expressed perfectly”. It is partial and analogous, as is all language about God. It is imperfect and limited because of human limitations in speech, writing, comprehension and knowledge.

We could say that the doctrine of the trinity is true theologically (which has various social parameters), but the doctrine of the Trinity not true in the same way that 2+2=4 is true. You can’t demonstrate it; the statement of the doctrine is limited because of the inherent limitations of human language and intellect. You could always say more about the Trinity. And even if doctrines about the Trinity were “truth expressed perfectly” we could easily be missing the boat.

That’s not teaching infallibly.

Again, see Augustine, de magistro. There is only one teacher, and it’s neither the Pope nor the Bishops.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Exactly. I’ll go further to say that it was Jesus who due to the Eucharistic Feast he instituted, we have a Bible. Without the Eucharist there could never have been the New Testament.

MJ

I would think without the Resurrection there would be no new Testament.

 

[MartinJordan]

I would think without the Resurrection there would be no new Testament.

But how would Christians know he was Resurrected unless he suffered grievously and died first? And the Eucharist Feast ensured that the New Testament in His Blood would come true. The Last Supper, the Crucifixion, Death and then the Resurrection. That is the order.

MJ

 

[7_Sorrows]

But how would Christians know he was Resurrected unless he suffered grievously and died first? And the Eucharist Feast ensured that the New Testament in His Blood would come true. The Last Supper, the Crucifixion, Death and then the Resurrection. That is the order.

MJ

yes. they knew what happened before, but without the Resurrection, there is an incomplete story.

 

[MartinJordan]

yes. they knew what happened before, but without the Resurrection, there is an incomplete story.

Not exactly. Recall : “You foolish Galatians”

MJ

 

[brian_custer]

there isn’t one catholic doctrine i disagree with even in the slightest

 

[MartinJordan]

there isn’t one catholic doctrine i disagree with even in the slightest

MJ

 

[Darryl_B]

Again, we are talking about the claim to teach infallibly. Teaching requires both a teacher and a student.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not “truth expressed perfectly”. It is partial and analogous, as is all language about God. It is imperfect and limited because of human limitations in speech, writing, comprehension and knowledge.

We could say that the doctrine of the trinity is true theologically (which has various social parameters), but the doctrine of the Trinity not true in the same way that 2+2=4 is true. You can’t demonstrate it; the statement of the doctrine is limited because of the inherent limitations of human language and intellect. You could always say more about the Trinity. And even if doctrines about the Trinity were “truth expressed perfectly” we could easily be missing the boat.

That’s not teaching infallibly.

Again, see Augustine, de magistro. There is only one teacher, and it’s neither the Pope nor the Bishops.

This is a very bad argument, my friend. Do you own a drawing-board?

 

[KarenAnne]

confession to a priest only for the forgiveness of sins. The Bible says to confess one to another but I don’t recall it says anywhere that it must be to a priest. We know that God forgives us - but for some reason we are told a priest is the only one who can reassure us of this…The forgiveness of sins depend on us forgiving others (see the Lord’s prayer). A priest may give absolution but I have NEVER had one ask me during a confession if I have forgiven those who sin against me… “…and forgive us our trespasses AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US…” . We are to confess one to another but it does not say to do this for the forgiveness of sins, while the lord’s prayer is very clear on how our sins are forgiven… got a little off track there but got my thoughts out

 

[Peter_J]

My greatest difficulties are:

1. Clericalism, particularly as expressed in the teaching that only men can be priests. (This is an expression of clericalism because it rests on the idea that the ministerial priesthood is something qualitatively other than the baptismal priesthood–otherwise no baptized person would be an “invalid subject” for ordination.)

In that case, it isn’t the teaching as such that is an expression of clericalism, but only one particular line of thought that is used to bolster it.

 

[Peter_J]

I would like to say Internet discussion forums, but that answer doesn’t qualify because they aren’t an official Catholic teaching. (But then, some of the other answers here aren’t official teachings either.)

 

[Peter_J]

The claim that human beings can teach infallibly.

So then St. Paul was incapable of teaching infallibly?

 

[Peter_J]

Infallible teaching requires perfect language and perfect reception of that language— and as humans we don’t have access to either one. Our imperfect language describes, at best, approximations of the truth—but they are only partial descriptions and are readily open to misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

The Creeds are true statements (in a social way, not a Platonic way), but they don’t teach infallibly. No one can. See St. Augustine’s de magistro.

Ok, I think I see what you’re saying. But we don’t claim anyone can teach infallibly in the sense that you mean.

 

[Tommy999]

I had many issues with Catholic doctrine when I first came to CAF with an open mind a couple of years ago but most of that turned out to be misconceptions and misunderstandings on my part. Most of my questions and concerns have since been addressed and clarified by others to the point they are no longer issues for me. I realize it was “my bad”, so to speak.

The issue I still struggle with the most is indulgences.. However, based on the other issues I had that were misunderstandings on my part, I realize this perhaps could be another example of that, but I am not sure.

It almost sounds like indulgences are a monetary payment to the Church for a lessening of punishment for sin. In other words, I can pay the Church to decrease my temporal punishment for sin.

If true, this doesn’t seem right to me and is not something I could believe in good faith.

When I picture myself on judgment day standing in front of our Lord, I will be fully responsible for what I did on this earth and it is not something I can buy my way out of or get preferential treatment for because I paid some money to the Church for an indulgence.

If I got it wrong, please correct me.

 

[truetofaith]

The Church doesn’t sell indulgences any longer…I don’t even hear any mention of indulgences in church for years.

 

[Della]

There’s a huge gap between the ability to teach authoritatively and infallibly.

I’m sorry but I can’t make out what you are saying here. If one has the authority from God, with Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit will guide that one into all truth, as the pope and the Magisterium has, what gap can there be?

Authority lies in persons, not in documents, no matter how inspired or “God-breathed” they may be. Obviously, someone has to determine what such a document means. Protestants do it all the time and claim they infallibly know what it means because “It’s God holy word.”

But that’s not enough–to state that how one reads Scripture is therefore, “God’s holy word.” What such persons should be saying is, but seldom do, is “This is how I understand the writings of the Bible.”

The Magisterium (which is all the bishops of the Church in union with the pope) has Christ’s direct authority to determine matters of faith and morals. Indeed, if it didn’t you would not believe some very core beliefs, such as the nature of Christ and the Trinity and his relation to the Trinity. That wasn’t determined merely by reading Scripture. The heretics of the time read the same Scriptures but came to very different conclusions. How is that possible if the Scripture alone is clear regarding doctrine?

No, authority does lie with men, but not with men with no authority to speak in Christ’s name, nor men who haven’t been ordained in Christ’s one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The promise of infallibility only lies in those so appointed by Christ and their successors–the Magisterium of the Church, not in just anyone who picks up a Bible.

 

[DaveBj]

I don’t do relics on any level.

 

[Della]

confession to a priest only for the forgiveness of sins. The Bible says to confess one to another but I don’t recall it says anywhere that it must be to a priest. We know that God forgives us - but for some reason we are told a priest is the only one who can reassure us of this…The forgiveness of sins depend on us forgiving others (see the Lord’s prayer). A priest may give absolution but I have NEVER had one ask me during a confession if I have forgiven those who sin against me… “…and forgive us our trespasses AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US…” . We are to confess one to another but it does not say to do this for the forgiveness of sins, while the lord’s prayer is very clear on how our sins are forgiven… got a little off track there but got my thoughts out

The priest having the authority to forgive sins doesn’t mean that only he can do that. Venial sins do not need to be confessed–those we can confess to God and be forgiven since they do little to no damage to ourselves or the body of Christ, nor do they cut us off from God’s love. They can have a effect if we persist in them, though, so we should avoid them, as much as we can, so we should confess them for our own good.

Mortal sins, OTOH, do damage to ourselves and to the body of Christ, therefore we go to the priest to be absolved (which means to be both forgiven and to be reconciled to God and to the body of Christ) and receive a penance to make up for the temporal and spiritual damage our sin has done to ourselves and to others.

The priest stands in the place of Christ, with his authority, which he gave to the Apostles. The priest can and does absolve us of all the sins we confess before him. Jesus gave the Apostles this authority here:

John 20[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, [the Apostles] and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

 

[Della]

I had many issues with Catholic doctrine when I first came to CAF with an open mind a couple of years ago but most of that turned out to be misconceptions and misunderstandings on my part. Most of my questions and concerns have since been addressed and clarified by others to the point they are no longer issues for me. I realize it was “my bad”, so to speak.

The issue I still struggle with the most is indulgences.. However, based on the other issues I had that were misunderstandings on my part, I realize this perhaps could be another example of that, but I am not sure.

It almost sounds like indulgences are a monetary payment to the Church for a lessening of punishment for sin. In other words, I can pay the Church to decrease my temporal punishment for sin.

If true, this doesn’t seem right to me and is not something I could believe in good faith.

When I picture myself on judgment day standing in front of our Lord, I will be fully responsible for what I did on this earth and it is not something I can buy my way out of or get preferential treatment for because I paid some money to the Church for an indulgence.

If I got it wrong, please correct me.

What you are talking about is almsgiving more than indulgences. Indulgences usually consist of prayers, confession and attending Mass. There are different kinds of indulgences with different criteria, but they are not how we pay to get out of our sins so we can go to heaven. Indulgences help us make up for the damage our sins have done, temporally and spiritually. They aren’t “get out of hell free cards.”

Almsgiving may include donations to the Church, generally by giving to one’s own parish/diocese, but they are also giving to the poor, housing the homeless, feeding the hungry, etc. Giving alms is very much a NT principle: quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=simple&format=Long&q1=alms&restrict=New+Testament&size=First+100.

I hope that helps you. :tiphat: