Which Catholic doctrines are currently being challenged by emerging christianity?

[Abu]

simpleas in #12 quotes Fr. Richard Rohr. Why?

In the Instruction On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian, (Donum Veritatis) [DV] 1990, CDF, it is clear that dissent is illicit.

**Dissent is illicit. **
There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope St John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

Real Catholics know that Rohr is a dissenter of note, and *Donum Veritatis *completely rules out all dissent:
“32. The Magisterium has drawn attention several times to the serious harm done to the community of the Church by attitudes of general opposition to Church teaching which even come to expression in organized groups. In his apostolic exhortation Paterna cum benevolentia [1974], Paul VI offered a diagnosis of this problem which is still apropos. In particular, he addresses here that public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church also called “dissent”, which must be distinguished from the situation of personal difficulties treated above. The phenomenon of dissent can have diverse forms. Its remote and proximate causes are multiple.”

#36. “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”

 

[simpleas]

The command from the Christ the Son of God is crystal clear:
“he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16), and to His chosen Supreme Vicar St Peter: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19).

So when you doubt, or challenge a doctrine of the Church, you doubt and challenge God.

Mediator Dei
“40. Only to the apostles, and thenceforth to those on whom their successors have imposed hands, is granted the power of the priesthood, in virtue of which they represent the person of Jesus Christ before their people, acting at the same time as representatives of their people before God. This priesthood is not transmitted by heredity or human descent. It does not emanate from the Christian community. It is not a delegation from the people.”
Pope PIUS XII 1947
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html

Pope St John Paul II’s Apostolic Epistle Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994 confirms the male-only priesthood as instituted by Christ Himself by an infallible declaration:
** ‘Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.’**

No real Catholic can doubt this doctrine without grave error.

Women and the Catholic Priesthood
By Monica Migliorino Miller Wednesday, September 26, 2007,
Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D., is associate professor of sacred theology at St. Mary’s College of Madonna University, Orchard Lake, Michigan, and author of Sexuality and Authority in the Catholic Church.
Extracts:
As a Catholic, theologian, and university professor, I know that many Catholics continue to reject Catholic teaching on the all-male priesthood and certainly cannot articulate the Church’s reasons for the teaching, much less defend it.

*The Catholic Priesthood and Women *is a defense and an interpretation of the Church’s doctrine. It attempts to provide a new generation of young Catholics and, most especially, seminarians with an understanding of the Church’s teaching and give them a “theological orientation to the topic that engages the chief objections.” Its author, Sister Sara Butler, MSBT, is a well-respected theologian who taught at Mundelein Seminary and currently holds a position at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Dunwoodie, New York. She openly confesses in the book’s introduction that for many years she supported the ordination of women. She credits John Paul II’s “theology of the body” and “his response to the feminist critique in the apostolic letter *Mulieris Dignitatem *(1988)” for her change of heart on this matter.

Butler believes that those who advocate for women in the priesthood are too preoccupied with the theological arguments and do not sufficiently appreciate or understand the “fundamental reasons” for the Church’s position.

The theology of an all-male priesthood has to do with the complementary/nuptial meaning of human sexuality and Christ’s masculine identity as bridegroom to the Churc – a marital I/Thou relation that forms the very order of the covenant of salvation itself.
As important as the fundamental reasons are for the all-male priesthood, these reasons must be doctrinally based on something. In the chapter that deals specifically with these reasons, Butler recognizes that doctrinally the male gender of Christ and the Apostles “is not arbitrary, but significant.” Thus a close connection does exist between the fundamental reasons or Church doctrine and the theological reasons. I would argue that, indeed, the doctrine and the theology overlap and begin to merge into one another. This merger is rooted in the fact that the priest acts* in persona Christi.* This is not simply a theological argument. It is the doctrine of the Church. Acting in the person of Christ means to act in his role as head to the Church. Eucharistically, Christ cannot simply be identified with the Church. He is the head that causes the being of the Church. Christ’s gender is a sign of his headship – his masculinity is a sign of his difference-in-relation to his people.

Catholics need to be well informed on the subject of this book if they are to offer a reasoned defense to a world that fails to appreciate sexual differences, much less the sacramental significance of those differences.
firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2007/09/women-and-the-catholic-priesth

No longer can such fiction be held, as the reality of the doctrine from Christ’s Own Magisterium is crystal clear and final.

Maybe in your world… not in mine. I as everyone has the freedom to doubt and question anything, thanks.

My reference to the honest question was to do with how the bible can interpret male and female from the one word man.

 

[simpleas]

simpleas in #12 quotes Fr. Richard Rohr. Why?

In the Instruction On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian, (Donum Veritatis) [DV] 1990, CDF, it is clear that dissent is illicit.

**Dissent is illicit. **
There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope St John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

Real Catholics know that Rohr is a dissenter of note, and *Donum Veritatis *completely rules out all dissent:
“32. The Magisterium has drawn attention several times to the serious harm done to the community of the Church by attitudes of general opposition to Church teaching which even come to expression in organized groups. In his apostolic exhortation Paterna cum benevolentia [1974], Paul VI offered a diagnosis of this problem which is still apropos. In particular, he addresses here that public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church also called “dissent”, which must be distinguished from the situation of personal difficulties treated above. The phenomenon of dissent can have diverse forms. Its remote and proximate causes are multiple.”

#36. “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”

Why not?

As I said before, isn’t this the point of the thread?

You like using the phase Real before Catholic, good for you, glad you consider yourself a Real Catholic
Maybe you could keep me in your prayers, so that I don’t slip and slide right out of the church as I feel like I’m doing at the moment. Thank you.

By the way, I think Fr R is still a practising Priest, so I don’t think I quoted from someone who is against Catholicism.

 

[Abu]

In the Instruction On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian, (Donum Veritatis) [DV] 1990, CDF, it is certain that dissent is illicit.
#36. “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”

simpleas #167
Why not?
As I said before, isn’t this the point of the thread?

There is no “emerging Christianity” as valid against Christ’s Church – there is only Christ’s Catholic Church with the fullness of Truth.

By the way, I think Fr R is still a practising Priest, so I don’t think I quoted from someone who is against Catholicism.

Every real Catholic sees Richard Rohr as a dissenter as Fr Bryce Sibley, STL shows in The Fr. Richard Rohr Phenomenon
Excerpts:
‘Rohr makes it very clear that he does not want to be limited to having to call God “Father.” He writes in *Adam’s Return *(which was the basis for his presentations) that we must “find public ways to recognize, honor, and name the feminine nature of God…”

‘Rohr’s thesis runs into the problem of Divine Revelation: Christ has definitively revealed God as Father. To say that God could just as easily be called “Mother” is in direct contradiction to Divine Revelation. As the Catechism states, “Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: He is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father…” (#240).

‘Like many others today, Rohr thinks that patriarchy carries a negative connotation. Once again, however, he runs into the problem of Revelation. It was Christ who became incarnate as male, who deliberately chose men to lead His Church.

‘Since homosexual activity is the ultimate denial of sexual difference, Rohr’s support of homosexual-advocacy groups such as *Soulforce *(and thus his implicit support of homosexual activity) is a radical contradiction of the apparent importance he places on sexual difference in his presentation on “male spirituality.” As the Catechism states, “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (#2357). “They do not proceed from a genuine sexual complementarity” clearly states that homosexual activity runs counter to the God-given meaning of sexual difference.”

‘In the first chapter of Adam’s Return, Rohr makes this very puzzling assertion regarding the Incarnation: “‘Incarnation is already redemption,’ and you do not need any blood sacrifice to display God’s commitment to humanity. Once God says yes to flesh, then flesh is no longer bad but the very ‘hiding and revealing’ place of God.” Rohr is saying that the crucifixion of our Lord was not necessary for redemption; that the Incarnation already brought about redemption.

‘In sum, Rohr’s presentation of his so-called “male spirituality” should certainly not be called Catholic. Though he claimed at his conference to sit in the “larger Christian and Catholic tradition,” he fails to demonstrate how referring to God as Mother, encouraging homosexual advocacy, denying the spiritual reality of Original Sin, denying the necessity of the Cross for redemption, and promoting pagan rituals resides within the Catholic or even Christian tradition.’ [My emphasis].

The Rev. Bryce Sibley, STL, who holds a Licentiate degree from the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family in Rome, is Pastor of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Parks, Louisiana, in the Diocese of Lafayette.
New Oxford Review, March 2006, Volume LXXIII, Number 3.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6819

 

[grannymh]

‘In the first chapter of Adam’s Return, Rohr makes this very puzzling assertion regarding the Incarnation: “‘Incarnation is already redemption,’ and you do not need any blood sacrifice to display God’s commitment to humanity. Once God says yes to flesh, then flesh is no longer bad but the very ‘hiding and revealing’ place of God.” Rohr is saying that the crucifixion of our Lord was not necessary for redemption; that the Incarnation already brought about redemption.

This is not really puzzling once people realize that Original Sin is being denied all over the place. The Incarnation has to be changed since the doctrines on human origin are being attacked. And yes, priests do please the media when they deny some basic doctrines.

That old saying about wolves in sheep’s clothing does apply to a few priests and lay theologians.

What is very sad is that there are some Catholics who are taken in by the fancy talk and are now trying to convince others to set aside some Catholic basics regarding the love of God and the need for sinners to seek forgiveness.

 

[grannymh]

By the way, I think Fr R is still a practising Priest, so I don’t think I quoted from someone who is against Catholicism.

Perhaps, it is more realistic to consider that some wolves in priest’s clothing simply want to change some annoying Catholic doctrines. The “good stuff” in their personal opinion remains. Changing Catholicism to suit individual preferences can be the goal of some Catholics who are very good individuals. Yet, we need to wake up to the fact that a lot of junk, spiritually damaging, exists. Like weeds and wheat growing together.
Matthew 13: 24 -30. Matthew 3: 12.

I do wonder if anyone will recognize the source of these quotes.
“However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.”

" Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue."

 

[simpleas]

In the Instruction On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian, (Donum Veritatis) [DV] 1990, CDF, it is certain that dissent is illicit.
#36. “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”
There is no “emerging Christianity” as valid against Christ’s Church – there is only Christ’s Catholic Church with the fullness of Truth.
Every real Catholic sees Richard Rohr as a dissenter as Fr Bryce Sibley, STL shows in The Fr. Richard Rohr Phenomenon
Excerpts:
‘Rohr makes it very clear that he does not want to be limited to having to call God “Father.” He writes in *Adam’s Return *(which was the basis for his presentations) that we must “find public ways to recognize, honor, and name the feminine nature of God…”

‘Rohr’s thesis runs into the problem of Divine Revelation: Christ has definitively revealed God as Father. To say that God could just as easily be called “Mother” is in direct contradiction to Divine Revelation. As the Catechism states, “Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: He is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father…” (#240).

‘Like many others today, Rohr thinks that patriarchy carries a negative connotation. Once again, however, he runs into the problem of Revelation. It was Christ who became incarnate as male, who deliberately chose men to lead His Church.

‘Since homosexual activity is the ultimate denial of sexual difference, Rohr’s support of homosexual-advocacy groups such as *Soulforce *(and thus his implicit support of homosexual activity) is a radical contradiction of the apparent importance he places on sexual difference in his presentation on “male spirituality.” As the Catechism states, “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (#2357). “They do not proceed from a genuine sexual complementarity” clearly states that homosexual activity runs counter to the God-given meaning of sexual difference.”

‘In the first chapter of Adam’s Return, Rohr makes this very puzzling assertion regarding the Incarnation: “‘Incarnation is already redemption,’ and you do not need any blood sacrifice to display God’s commitment to humanity. Once God says yes to flesh, then flesh is no longer bad but the very ‘hiding and revealing’ place of God.” Rohr is saying that the crucifixion of our Lord was not necessary for redemption; that the Incarnation already brought about redemption.

‘In sum, Rohr’s presentation of his so-called “male spirituality” should certainly not be called Catholic. Though he claimed at his conference to sit in the “larger Christian and Catholic tradition,” he fails to demonstrate how referring to God as Mother, encouraging homosexual advocacy, denying the spiritual reality of Original Sin, denying the necessity of the Cross for redemption, and promoting pagan rituals resides within the Catholic or even Christian tradition.’ [My emphasis].

The Rev. Bryce Sibley, STL, who holds a Licentiate degree from the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family in Rome, is Pastor of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Parks, Louisiana, in the Diocese of Lafayette.
New Oxford Review, March 2006, Volume LXXIII, Number 3.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6819

I sometimes think that the fullness of truth has not yet been recognised, in that there is more to be discovered about humanity and relationship with God, through Jesus.

I’ve read a few books by Fr Rohr, not read Adam’s return. One quote from the book on Good reads :

*“Right words make all of us feel falsely important. Right action keeps all of us forever beginners.” *

What I like about Fr Rohr is he can talk about what it meant to him to become a priest, how he viewed what he needed to do, as a priest, how important he thought he was, how he would change the world sort of idea.

Some people like open minded ideas, and people such as Fr Rohr, some do not.

 

[simpleas]

Perhaps, it is more realistic to consider that some wolves in priest’s clothing simply want to change some annoying Catholic doctrines. The “good stuff” in their personal opinion remains. Changing Catholicism to suit individual preferences can be the goal of some Catholics who are very good individuals. Yet, we need to wake up to the fact that a lot of junk, spiritually damaging, exists. Like weeds and wheat growing together.
Matthew 13: 24 -30. Matthew 3: 12.

I do wonder if anyone will recognize the source of these quotes.
“However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.”

" Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue."

Can you explain what junk your are thinking of ? I have come across one or two things that Fr R has expressed in his faith journey which I had never heard before and it did confuse me about Catholic teaching. But alot of his writing is very good, especially about the true and false self, and suffering.

 

[grannymh]

Can you explain what junk your are thinking of ? I have come across one or two things that Fr R has expressed in his faith journey which I had never heard before and it did confuse me about Catholic teaching. But alot of his writing is very good, especially about the true and false self, and suffering.

Since I did not mention names in post 170, it is difficult for me to answer your question. As for general junk, it is the prevalent idea that Catholic doctrines on human origin, human nature and the dawn of human history can be easily altered or dismissed. Dismissing the need for the Catholic Sacraments of Matrimony, Confession, and Holy Orders is also popular. It is not necessary to go into detai; because the intent of altering or dismissing is usually obviousl.

 

[simpleas]

Since I did not mention names in post 170, it is difficult for me to answer your question. As for general junk, it is the prevalent idea that Catholic doctrines on human origin, human nature and the dawn of human history can be easily altered or dismissed. Dismissing the need for the Catholic Sacraments of Matrimony, Confession, and Holy Orders is also popular. It is not necessary to go into detai; because the intent of altering or dismissing is usually obviousl.

Thanks.

Well you said this in post 170

Perhaps, it is more realistic to consider that some wolves in priest’s clothing simply want to change some annoying Catholic doctrines.

After I had said I believed Fr R to still be a practising Catholic Priest.

You didn’t need to name anybody, it seemed obvious who you were referring to.

Anyway, I feel like I’m playing a game rather than discussing the topic.

If noone is open to others thoughts, opinions etc then there is no point.

Thanks anyway.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks.

Well you said this in post 170

Perhaps, it is more realistic to consider that some wolves in priest’s clothing simply want to change some annoying Catholic doctrines.

After I had said I believed Fr R to still be a practising Catholic Priest.

You didn’t need to name anybody, it seemed obvious who you were referring to.

Anyway, I feel like I’m playing a game rather than discussing the topic.

If noone is open to others thoughts, opinions etc then there is no point.

Thanks anyway.

At this point, I feel that I have posted sufficiently on problem thoughts, inclluding those on other threads. Right now, I am discouraged because of a few problems early in the thread. I need to opt out of the discussion.

There seems to be an unifying theme or attack on Catholicism as it exists today. It is the prevalent idea that Catholic doctrines on human origin and "atonement " for Original Sin can be easily updated or dismissed. Dismissing the need for the Catholic Sacraments of Matrimony, Confession, and Holy Orders is also popular. At this point I do not feel capable of putting this thread into some kind of sensible order. Obviously, discussions on this thread can continue without me.

 

[Abu]

simpleas #172
I have come across one or two things that Fr R has expressed in his faith journey which I had never heard before and it did confuse me about Catholic teaching.

No wonder – they are more than “confusing” – they need to be seen clearly as gravely wrong and as dissent.

#174
I feel like I’m playing a game rather than discussing the topic.
If noone is open to others thoughts, opinions etc then there is no point.

The fact that Fr Richard Rohr’s actual statements have been conclusively shown to be gravely erroneous and dissenting means that this is no game but reality – and the reality of dissent.

“It is clear that all theology, being by definition based on the principles of faith, must remain consistent with these principles. If it contradicts them, it excludes itself from the field of theology. A theology deserves this name only on the condition that it proves, with arguments that are at least probable, that it is in harmony with the principles of faith. This condition limits theological pluralism.” When it excludes itself in this way, it is actually “philosophy of religion” and no longer “theology”. [Quoted in *The Faith and the Theologians, by Msgr Eugene M Kevane from The Teaching Church In Our Time, Daughters of St Paul, 1978].

Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on 24/1/02:
"In fact, in recent decades Rome has been rather cautious and even slow to act against some dissident theologians and renegade bishops, for reasons known to Rome I imagine. As you note, a lack of condemnation or censure from the Vatican in the present times is not the equivalent of an endorsement. In fact, until the very end, Jesus Christ kept to himself the sinister character and corrupt behavior of Judas Iscariot rather than expose him to the other apostles, even as he stole from the purse of the poor and made plans to betray the Son of God into the hands of sinners." [My emphasis].

Every real Catholic can see the dissent expressed by Richard Rohr and the fact that he cannot be trusted to explain or defend Catholic faith or morals.

 

[simpleas]

No wonder – they are more than “confusing” – they need to be seen clearly as gravely wrong and as dissent.
The fact that Fr Richard Rohr’s actual statements have been conclusively shown to be gravely erroneous and dissenting means that this is no game but reality – and the reality of dissent.

“It is clear that all theology, being by definition based on the principles of faith, must remain consistent with these principles. If it contradicts them, it excludes itself from the field of theology. A theology deserves this name only on the condition that it proves, with arguments that are at least probable, that it is in harmony with the principles of faith. This condition limits theological pluralism.” When it excludes itself in this way, it is actually “philosophy of religion” and no longer “theology”. [Quoted in *The Faith and the Theologians

, by Msgr Eugene M Kevane from The Teaching Church In Our Time, Daughters of St Paul, 1978].

Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on 24/1/02:
"In fact, in recent decades Rome has been rather cautious and even slow to act against some dissident theologians and renegade bishops, for reasons known to Rome I imagine. As you note, a lack of condemnation or censure from the Vatican in the present times is not the equivalent of an endorsement. In fact, until the very end, Jesus Christ kept to himself the sinister character and corrupt behavior of Judas Iscariot rather than expose him to the other apostles, even as he stole from the purse of the poor and made plans to betray the Son of God into the hands of sinners." [My emphasis].

Every real Catholic can see the dissent expressed by Richard Rohr and the fact that he cannot be trusted to explain or defend Catholic faith or morals.

With regard to what Fr John Echert said above about Rome not acting to quiet some religious members, it just can’t happen in our time. The internet is so vast, any body can say any thing, and of course there is freedom of speech, freedom of thought etc.

I have read about one or two priests being excommunicated in recent years, Fr R isn’t among them.

Judas was needed to hand over Jesus at the appointed time, so Jesus would not have said anything to the others because they would have reacted. I don’t see how using that as an example shows how people today writing and giving speeches on spiritual matters leads people away from God.

Personally I wouldn’t call anyone a dissenter, I’m not in a position to do so,

 

[Abu]

simpleas #177
Personally I wouldn’t call anyone a dissenter, I’m not in a position to do so,

Obviously, because you dissent from whatever you choose, and as Christ Himself clearly warned: “And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matthew 18:17).

But that fact does not excuse anyone from realising their errors, recanting and seeking forgiveness from God.

There are no Catholic doctrines or dogmas which can be rejected or even disputed legitimately, except by ignorance of Christ’s teaching, because Christ Himself established His Church, and no other, to teach, sanctify and rule. The ultimate is in rejecting through bad will.

 

[simpleas]

Obviously, because you dissent from whatever you choose, and as Christ Himself clearly warned: “And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matthew 18:17).

But that fact does not excuse anyone from realising their errors, recanting and seeking forgiveness from God.

There are no Catholic doctrines or dogmas which can be rejected or even disputed legitimately, except by ignorance of Christ’s teaching, because Christ Himself established His Church, and no other, to teach, sanctify and rule. The ultimate is in rejecting through bad will.

Obviously, because you dissent from whatever you choose?

Not sure what you mean by that statement, so I won’t comment until I get it explained.

Thanks.

 

[Abu]

simpleas #179
Obviously, because you dissent from whatever you choose?

Not sure what you mean by that statement, so I won’t comment until I get it explained.

Thanks.
simpleas #156
It’s about the teaching that only men can be ordained to “bring us all” to God.
……it’s denied to women, because of the tradition of the church, not an actual command from God.
#166
I as everyone has the freedom to doubt and question anything, thanks.

Hence the logical conclusion from you emphasizing that you have “the freedom to doubt… anything” – so expressed and repeated shows dissent.

The only way we know “Christ’s teachings” with certainty is through His own Church which He established and which gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God, as Christ wrote nothing. Further dogma “proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.” (CCC #88).

Fr Thomas Dubay in Faith And Certitude, Ignatius Press, 1995:
“They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than and indifference to reality and to the Author of reality…One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.” (p 189-190).

Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.

Doubt and Difficulty
“A negative doubt is a close relation to ignorance. An opinion is an assent of the mind but with a well-founded fear that the opposite may be true.” With an unhealthy doubt, “a person suspends judgment even when the evidence is conclusive and completely adequate. This is skepticism, intellectual cowardice……A difficulty is a problem, a not-seeing how two realities fit together….a situation we do not yet understand and perhaps will never understand. It is a limitation on our knowledge, a passing or permanent limitation.”

John Henry Cardinal Newman said “ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.” (Apologia pro vita Sua). [Fr Dubay, op. cit. p 82-4].

Since the Catholic Church has the clear mandate from the Son of God to teach, sanctify and rule, She not only teaches infallibly but develops doctrine infallibly. Questions can, and are, put to the Magisterium through its dicasteries (the official congregations of the Holy See), to help with any difficulties and the Magisterium clarifies those difficulties.