Protestant: "What If I Think a Church Teaching Is Wrong?"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- Karlo Broussard addresses a common concern for potential converts to Catholicism: what to do when personal beliefs clash with Church teachings? Karlo explains the distinction between infallible and non-infallible teachings, outlining the different levels of assent required for each.
Full episode: ua-cam.com/users/li...
More Catholic Answers: catholic.com
Donate: givecatholic.com
I think there are some elements missing in this very clear academic answer to the question. The missing elements are: obedience, humility, and patience. One of the great failings of Protestantism is that it makes each individual responsible for understanding scripture from his/her own perspective. Each is expected to be his own personal pope, without the benefit of 2000 years of prayerful intellectual analysis behind him. Each is expected to be able to articulate what “I personally believe“, and to be able to defend it against other personal interpretations. Within Catholicism, we try not to take personal stands that may be at odds with church teaching. Instead, we listen, we pray, we research, we obey, we offer conditional assent, and we patiently allow time for a deeper understanding to present itself to us through the Holy Spirit.
That is the exact opposite of my experience. Mind you, you've lumped all of Protestantism into one category so on the whole you're probably right. I grew up in the Catholic church, and my experience is that less than 10% of the people there know anything at all about the Bible or the meaning of the liturgy. I wouldn't even consider most of them to be Christian based on how unwilling they are to attest to their faith in conversation. Most of them see greater value in backing a certain politician rather than our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I've been going to a Reformed church ever since the Catholics closed their doors during COVID and the Bishops betrayed their priests by imposing a vaccine mandate. At the Reformed church, there is heavy emphasis on Scripture. Completely contrary to how you describe it, there actually is order and authority within the church. Not a single member of the congregation thinks he is his own personal Pope, and the sermons that are presented are given in much greater detail than the 10 minute homily you will receive at a Catholic mass where at least half the people are dozing off. The sermons I've heard from Reformers give reference to great thinkers that spanned the entirety of Christian history, including the early Church Fathers. Overall, there is significantly more instruction given in the Reformed camp, and significantly more accountability from the church community to lead a life according to the commandments found throughout Scripture, and in the Gospel in particular.
@@gregoryrho8863 maybe its your feeling, Gregory, but it's a 'shame' (dommage in French) to divorce or leave the Catholic Church for those reasons! Divorce is not from God, who created one Church as well as one couple becoming one flesh when married!"
Amen Fiat
@@FIAT-Voluntas-Tua-333God created a church that allowed its members to sexually assault children, not to mention the amount of money stored in the Vatican while children in 3rd world countries starve to death? You sound ridiculous lol. The church isn’t a place, a building or organization. It’s the UNIVERSAL AKA “CATHOLIC” BODY of Christ in which all believers who place their faith in Christ can partake in. & no protestant believes they are their own pope, we have 1 pope & 1 infallible Father who is in heaven not some fallible human being on earth. I’d rather submit to the Father’s infallibility instead of your pope who blesses gay marriages.
@@FIAT-Voluntas-Tua-333 No it's not my feeling, it's an objective fact. The Catholic Church did not adhere to Scripture or its own Catechism during COVID by supporting and imposing mandates, and are complicit in the violation of the 6th commandment. To attend such an institution for the sake of tradition is the real shame for anyone who professes faith in Christ.
I don't understand sometimes, but I am like Peter when he didn't fully comprehend an infallible teaching.
John 6
66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,"
As a convert, I struggled with this question. And I believe this is absolutely the right question to ask, because this gets at the heart of Catholicism and the theology of the Church. It goes back to what Jesus said, that he gave authority to his apostles to lead his church, and said that they would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit. Infallibility of the Church (as well a the pope in particular as indicted by similar things Jesus says specifically to Peter) is a logical deduction based on Jesus' promises for his church to be lead into ALL truth and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.
If I disagree, or have a hard time accepting a teaching of the Church, I cannot believe the Church to be wrong. But it very well could be that the teaching needs clarity. It could be that that teaching isn't complete. It might need to be understood carefully in light of other truths. But it could be (and likely is to some extent), that I'm wrong or have some incorrect presupposition that puts me at odds with the Church.
It's not necessarily a bad thing if I struggle with certain church teachings. If I didn't, then I would be perfect. It is perfectly fine and expected to struggle with understanding and accepting certain church teachings. But one must at least not oppose Church teaching, and work to better understand and accept it.
At the end of the day, Jesus promised the judgments of the Church would not be false. So, if I disagree, there's something off with how I'm seeing the matter.
What you're saying is true with an infallible teaching, but with a non-infallible teaching the Church actually can be wrong.
There was once a time when the broad, overarching teaching of the Church was that the rhythm method of planning pregnancy was wrong. NFP comes from the Rhythm method, which was universally rejected by the same Bishops and Fathers who also rejected artificial contraceptives. Now, the Church has the position that NFP is acceptable if used properly.
To go from an absolute, categorical ban to "this is allowed sometimes" makes the two positions mutually exclusive. In other words, either the Church was wrong before, or the Church is wrong now. We can't say the Church was correct on the universal moral law while disagreeing with her own conclusions on the moral law, that would be sophism and would render our faith largely meaningless.
For a fallible teaching, the Church can - and even has - been incorrect in the past. We should still obey whenever possible, but the Church recognizes that sometimes the burden of obedience goes beyond what can really be expected of a person, which is why Donum Veritatis permits disagreement or dissent in VERY limited circumstances and for very limited reasons, with many qualifiers. The way my Priest has explained this to me is "if mom allows you to disobey her under certain circumstances, disobeying in those situations is still obeying her rules"
@@timrichardson4018 I know someone who thinks that he is the only person who worked out that certain dogmas/bulls are of the same meaning as decrees of infallibility but he is unable to agree to those(e.g. that everyone outside of the Catholic Church is not saved even if they gave their life for Christ) and neither did/do many high ranking clerics in the Catholic Church and therefore he sees the whole Church as invalid and himself under an automatic anathema. It seems like an obsession almost. Can any one offer help/counsel?
So the Holy Spirit guided the Borgias? the Medici Popes?
@@clivejames5058 Popes can easily stray from the Holy Spirit, which is error in the Pope. 99.99% of the Pope's activity is not in defining anything and thus not in this discussion. Most Pope's have never made an attempt at a infallible teaching.
@@XSD.1. The core error here is in defining the use of the word Church. He is using the word Church in a different context, than the teaching. The teaching is to Catholics, thus it means a Catholic who with proper knowledge turns their back on the Church is doomed. It does not apply to non-Catholics.
Great job in providing these clips for specific questions. Love what you're doing here , they'll have more visibility and reach , esp for those that have short attention span, becoming common these days.
Very, very good question and answer!
Our hearts are broken by sin. Don't follow them. Follow the church founded by God. The fact that individual people think they know best is how we've gotten into the protestant mess in the first place.
Ther was more to it. Luther was Catholic trying to save the Catholic Religion.
@@whatsup3270 Martin Luther was not a Catholic trying to save the Catholic religion, but rather a Christian reformer who criticised certain practices and doctrines of the Catholic Church of his time. Luther published his 95 theses in 1517, mainly in response to the sale of indulgences, which he considered a corruption of the Christian faith. Which was a personal excuse.
Luther sought to reform the Church, but his criticisms led to a wider rupture and the formation of new branches of Christianity, including Protestantism.
@@FIAT-Voluntas-Tua-333 Was Martin Luther ordain as a Catholic Priest?
Donum Veritatis 30-31
If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.
In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth.
31. It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium's teaching without hesitation, the theologian's difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.
For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.
The thing I would struggle with here is, as someone interested in Catholicism, some of the Dogmas become such a hard stumbling block for those coming into Rome.
For me it’s not even the fact that it’s a dogma… but rather, why something is a dogma.
Why is Papal Infallibility needed to be a dogma, why is it needed to have the Marian Dogmas?
Like, are they actually necessary for salvation (which a Dogma would suggest they are) and from what scriptures or Traditiins have they been derived from to make them dogma?
Although infallibility was defined in 1870, its formal use was very rare and limited mainly to the two major declarations concerning the Virgin Mary. Here are a few more examples of infallible declarations:
1. **Immaculate Conception (1854)**: Proclaimed by Pope Pius IX, declaring that the Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin.
2. **Assumption of Mary (1950)**: Proclaimed by Pope Pius XII, declaring that the Virgin Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven at the end of her earthly life.
Sounds like a very late accretion to me... And a bad one.
That's true for Papal infallibility (ex Cathedra statements) but there are other forms infallible teachings can take, like ecumenical councils.
Good question and video. Thank you guys.
If the heart is right, why would someone not receive the Truth?
What do you mean by "the heart is right"? Does it only involve the absence of malice, or are you speaking of an unattainable level of idealistic perfection?
If the former: suppose someone had a terrible traumatic experience during their first Confession, and found it psychologically impossible to go to Confession ever again, and they sincerely doubted the Church's consistent teaching regarding the role and necessity of the sacrament of Confession.
Yet, suppose that they still wanted to stay Catholic. In which case, their struggle is not grounded in malice, but in a deep psychological wound that God (for whatever reason) does not see fit to heal within them.
Perhaps that could serve as one of many potentially plausible examples of how someone whose "heart is right" (i.e. without malice) is still not able to receive the Truth, through no real fault of their own.
I like what Fr. Mike says "God, I know what you want, but I am going to do what I want?"
If it were the case where you are never aware that the the teaching were infallible, or just did not know how to apply it or something like that, that would not be mortal sin.
I think you can say "I know that that this is true, but I am not sure, I need to do more study, etc. to better understand what this means."
It is a great question to ask though, Michael Lofton, I believe a few videos talking about this question as well.
Mortal sin only occurs by presupposing the “infallible teaching” is correct. The teaching is the very thing that is in question.
Bad word choice. If one substitutes Doctrine when the speaker says "infallible" the answer is much better. Many say there are 2 infallible teachings, both about Mary, other say up to 22 infallible teachings. The key difference is infallible teachings are typically prerequisites for existing doctrine. So it is Dogma which was revealed by God, Doctrine which is the Church's understanding of our requirements, and Infallible teachings which are usually needed to achieve Doctrine. The big problem is infallible teachings are not well defined.
Do not follow any false doctrines!! Move to another Church if the one you are at has false doctrines.
If you think something is off , look it up. All false doctrines are known at this point and can be found online.
Karlo, I understand this is an extract, and I'm not sure if you said more. It was overall a good answer, but I think could be better if you gave some examples. PLUS also that the infallible teachings, and especially ex-cathedra without full blow Councils, are actually very few. An example of an infallible teaching we have to accept, that a potential-convert from Protestantism will struggle with, would be the Immaculate Conception (although I would submit it is easy once you think about it. Like would Jesus spend 9 months in the womb of a sinner, surrounded by sinful amniotic fluid, and getting oxygen and nutrients from the blood of a sinner? No? That is why Mary HAD to be Immaculate. Boom!).
An example of a non-infallible teaching, in fact, I think many that real Catholics have to reject, would be the garbage like blessing of homos3xual couples, the climate change Kool-Aid, the "mercy without repentance and conversion" being pushed on us. A future good pope will expunge all these and more, a virtual bonfire across all tech platforms now that we don't have handwritten books to burn.
It was poor word choice; he should have used "doctrine". The Pope never blessed any same sex couple's union or give instruction for such.
As person who remembers *SNOW DRIFTS* and blizzards as a child I can say the climate is changing, has been changing and will change. We have been coming out of an Ice age for the last 10,000 years This is fact.
What you consider as kool aid is whether man has had any impact on this recent climate change.
In my lifetime alone I can see large changes.
And has been mentioned, Neither the Church nor the Pope has blessed homosexual unions.
It is _individuals_ which have been blessed and that is as it should be!
Any sinner should be able to be blessed, to say they should not, is not understanding a blessing.
If only the hyper-traditionalist types would recognize that what you have articulated here is actually what the Church teaches. The Church does grant us permission to have private dissent in certain, very limited, situations.
So....pride masses are ok or not... because the church ok with it....I'll wait for your mental gymnastics on this
Could you explain the part about how one could never question falliable or infallible teaching in public?
Never Question?
Dogma, Doctrine, and infallible teachings are requirements; however you are allowed to understand them, and the video is about people not fully understanding these things. To deny these things as correct is serious. To lead others to believe these things are false is the definition of heresy, and historically is the ground for excommunication.
Fallible teachings which include most of the catechism, homilies, Church teachings as guides, are not requirements. Some examples include political voting, supporting political laws, teachings on nontraditional marriages, comments on immigration, dressing for Church, holding hands during the Our Father, on and on it goes.
@whatsup3270 Agree the historical definition of heresy is leading others to false belief. I'm talking about a question of authority. We can't get to true teaching if we don't have open discussion.
@@d46512 Okay let me try again:
The fallible teachings do not have to be followed, a person can tell the priest their opinion on immigration or other things (please don't) and no real issue occurs though he may try to teach them of a better way.
The infallible teachings can be questioned (Doctrine) however depending on the level of disagreement there may be a break in communion. For example the Arian issue (Jesus not divine). If someone asks about why Jesus did this or that because a divine entity should not have, that is an education request and not and issue. If someone actually believes Jesus was not divine they should not take communion. However, they should attend mass, and seek teaching from their parish on why Jesus was known to be divine. If they remain in a belief Jesus was not divine they remain out of communion but in the Church. Hopefully over time they come to understand the Church has it right or at least they are open to the Church having it correct. Now if they actually start to teach others Jesus was not divine the heresy and excommunication come into play, because they now put others at risk.
Question: Someone I know has a grave problem. By bulls and by pronouncement of the dicastery he would be excommunicated, but the justification of the serious matter is not well supported and in certain points it's illogical, which suggests that the authorities were either not well informed or it is simply a political act of the conservative wing of Church. Furthermore, canon 126 says: "An act placed out of ignorance or out of error concerning something which constitutes its substance or which amounts to a condition sine qua non is invalid." Which leads to the understanding that since it is not doctrine and the justification of the serious matter is not well supported, then the sentence would be null. @CatholicAnswers
He has the opportunity to learn more which will likely align him with the Church, then he can recognize his error and null the issue, not before.
@@whatsup3270 you are speculating that he has error. The error is from the Church because nothing issued on the matter alligns with the studies of other serious academic scholar who is also a priest. The Church just ignores his books and academic papers
@@juncatv Well maybe I misunderstood the comment as it is rather secretive in subject. Maybe you could just list the error? It is a very odd comment because Bulls, dicastery, and excommunication would not seem to go together. Bulls are a wide subject they are mostly Papal teachings, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is about keeping ordain people inline, and excommunication is historically about teaching opposite of the Church. So this is a very odd alignment.
@@whatsup3270 Of course, he is a freemason. The church has condemned it without discriminating what type of freemasonry is the problem. Benedict XVI only limited himself to his response by LETTER in an article in the Observatore Romano that he gave when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. His reaction was almost a tantrum. The best Catholic historian on freemasonry, Father Dr. José Antonio Ferrer Benemeli SJ, has given testimony in his expositions and interviews that the Pontifical Commission of Canon Law that he advised on this issue was responsible for the reform of the Canon Code that removed the excommunication in a vote of a large majority in favor of that removal. The minority against it were German bishops, among them Ratzinger and that is why he wrote a subsequent "clarification." It is a lie that it was removed by "mistake" because decades have passed and they did not correct the "mistake" as it was not necessary for either side. The norm condemns the groups that plot against the Church. Under this concept, even journalists who denounce the Church would be excommunicated, as well as socialists, critical laymen, etc. All the Catholic arguments and books against Freemasonry are very bad in the thesis they present. Almost none of them make Ferrer Benemeli's studies visible. Why? Because he points out that Freemasonry is not a religion, that it does not have its own doctrine, being only a system of moral conduct, and that there is not just one Freemasonry, but many; among them the harmful anticlerical ones and others that are theistic and respectful of the faith of their members. The papal bull Humanum genus speaks of naturalism and this is repeated by Benedict XVI. But this is regarding "grand orients" like in France or Italy, who are political activists. This is irregular freemasonry and not the norm. Regular FM is prohibited from political activism of freemasonry and does not discuss religious beliefs. That is why a general condemnation is neither ethical nor moral. The injustice is committed because the fault must be individual, not collective. That is why canon 126 is quite clear: If the measure is taken out of ignorance on the part of a party, it is null. We know that there are measures taken out of ignorance or coercion, as happened with the Templars. Or is it not true that the Pope let them all be burned to death by the French king when they were innocent and loyal to the Church? How is it possible that a sinner, perhaps unrepentant, an LGBT activist can receive a blessing, but a Christian Mason or a Catholic believer with upright moral conduct is excommunicated and denied all the sacraments including confession? He cannot marry, cannot take communion, cannot confess, and not even extreme unction. The punishment is not proportional and does not judge according to the nature of what is judged: what kind of Masonry is it? Is the judged apostate or does he believe in the Catholic faith? Does he teach something contrary to salvation? It is incredible that even the sacraments of Protestant Christians are recognized, when before they were treated as heretics, but the Mason, a believer, is treated as a despicable being, fostering more myths against them with the result that several conservative dictatorships killed or imprisoned them out of prejudice. Did anyone speak in their favor? And for that reason, not being a matter of doctrine and the grounds being weak or defamatory, with clear political tendencies, the measure seems to me null in all its extremes. And I hope that the souls of my relatives and of any other person unjustly judged, can enjoy a fair trial before God, who reserves the final judgment for himself.
knowledge is a double edge word unfortunately not every one is a chosen one who can understand the deeper context of the word of God, the Bible is perfect it has every thing you need for our salvation but not every thing is written in the Bible and that's where the Devil operates
I’m hearing a lot of casuistry here. First, “infallible” teachings require the full assent of faith. Non-infallible teachings, which are nevertheless promulgated to the whole Church require “religious submission of will and intellect,” even if they were not promulgated by definitive act. We should not be looking for ways that we can undermine or reject any teaching of the Church. That said, it is possible for wolves to enter the sheepfold, and if this happens, they do not act on the Church’s behalf. There is plenty of evidence of this happening ever since WWII, at least. There is an anti-church that exists alongside the true Church, and this is something we all have to deal with. The fact that Rome has never officially recognized that the Church is in a true crisis raises many grave concerns. It is not a simple issue, but it is critical to solve. So many souls are being lost.
Sounds like a whole lot of obfuscation to me.
The real problem is this: belief isn't something you choose. It's something that chooses you. Belief comes from experience and how it interacts with our essential being. It is action that we choose, not belief -- we can choose to ignore that which we believe for the purpose of taking action. But that is very different from choosing to believe or to not believe.
If you're skeptical of this, then try to "choose" to believe something that you know for a fact is not so (or to believe the opposite of something that you know for a fact is so) and has significant consequences, and then actually act on that "belief". A belief isn't a true and complete belief unless one is willing to act on that belief without any real hesitation, after all. If you find yourself hesitant to act under those conditions (if not outright refusing to) then you don't actually hold the belief in the first place, which means your "choice" to believe wasn't really a choice after all.
This is why it's preposterous to insist that someone should "choose" to believe in God. Such a thing cannot be chosen, it must be given to us, and this is why belief in God is a gift from Him.
You're incorrect in the way you define belief, which in consequence makes everything you derive from your definition incorrect.
@@aprendiz4 In what way is my definition incorrect? If my definition is incorrect, then what word corresponds to the definition I supplied?
The underlying definition I'm using is "mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something". That's straight from the American Heritage Dictionary.
If you truly have conviction that something is true, then it'll guide your actions. And the stronger that conviction, the more willing you'll be to act. But such conviction isn't something you *choose,* it's something you *acquire,* usually through experience, but sometimes from thinking things through. Either way, choice isn't in the equation, and that's the point.
@@n2185x Well, since you're already telling me what faith must be from your POV, you don't actually seem that open to correction. Are you?
Let me put it this way: if it was all about mental assent, what exactly was stopping the disciples from doing such great actions as ordering mountains to move and expelling strong demons, if they knew they could trust Jesus when he said they could do it?
@@aprendiz4 I wasn't talking about faith. I was talking about *belief.* They're two different things.
Faith is "the assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another". Assent *does* involve choice, and so faith *can* also involve choice.
For me, faith is the presumption of or belief in (it can be either) the truth of that which cannot be unequivocally shown to others. If you could unequivocally show something to be true (through demonstration, for instance), after all, then there would be no real choice but to believe it, since to disbelieve that which is unequivocally shown to be true is to essentially be insane. For instance, I can demonstrate the presence of gravity on the earth to everyone around me. Someone who nonetheless insists that gravity isn't there is someone almost all of us would regard to be insane.
But I cannot demonstrate the existence of God. I nevertheless believe in His existence anyway. That belief is the result of my own experiences. It is "faith" in that it is belief in that which I cannot demonstrate to others. But it is not something I have chosen, it is something that has happened to me, a conviction I have.
But presumption is something I *can* choose, and there are a number of articles of faith I hold which are exactly that.
As to the question about the disciples, it could easily be that what they had wasn't belief but was faith, that they chose to presume the truth of that which Jesus had told them, but that because they lacked the *conviction* of belief (or, perhaps, lacked sufficient conviction), they weren't able to do the things you state. I honestly don't know. We haven't the ability to read the minds of others, even when they're alive, so there's no telling.
@@n2185x There is no distinction between belief and faith in the Bible. They come from the same word in the Greek.
Besides, assenting about something being true doesn't mean you go morally about it. I can believe God will judge me for my evil actions, all while intellectually assenting that Jesus has power over me and his sacrifice was real and for my sins and still be evil nonetheless. You would say you would have to be insane to act this way, and all I can say it's that that's not a refutation, nor does it end up being anything other than your fallible belief. Sorry if I come off as mean, it's not my intention.
Well hey, that works out great for everyone because then if people don’t see how Jesus Christ is the Messiah, which is definitely an infallible teaching, they still have a chance at heaven. According to you.
Wait a minute. Didn’t Jesus Christ tell Peter that He was going to build His church on the truth (rock) that His Father would reveal truth to them? That would fit with the Spirit of truth leading and guiding a believer into all truth wouldn’t it? And wouldn’t that fit with the New covenant promise of a heart of flesh rather than a heart of stone to do His will? And wouldn’t that fit with no one teaching their brother saying know the Lord because they all know Him from the least to the greatest? Do you accept those infallible teachings? Do you accept the infallible teaching that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life and NO ONE comes to the Father accept through Him?
I’m just wondering what an infallible teaching is and why have them? What good do they do? Do you think they might be a source of discord among brothers? Does God hate discord among brothers? What is unity among brothers like? Wouldn’t it be best to take any crap teaching and toss it out with the trash so brothers could dwell together in unity and see oil flow and cover the land? I don’t know. Anyway. Just a few questions that came to mind. 👊🏼🔒
So if I say no to the Filioque. No to the Immaculate Conception. No to Purgatory. And then would I have to take my Mortal Sin with me to the Orthodox Church?
If you have that many big issues with the Church and prayer, your own study or parish priest wasn’t able to dissuade you perhaps you need a spiritual director. Or go to the Diocese for some help. Good luck and God bless you.
Indeed, when I sought out 3 Orthodox priests, for guidance, understanding and prayer, I discovered a truly remarkable way of worshipping and loving God - the way Christians did for the first thousand years.
Millions of scholars studying for 2,000 years have all 3 wrong?
The Orthodox churches believe in the Immaculate Conception as well as a type of Purgatory, although they don't have a name for it.
So do you believe that only the Father can directly send out the Holy Spirit?
It seems it might be impossible to disbelieve (or believe) infallible teachings, because it's unclear what these things mean. What is God? What does God-man mean? What does born of a virgin mean? What does it mean to suffer death, be buried, and rise again mean? Etc etc etc. And so it seems faith, in part, is a never-ending attempt to understand what this stuff even means, rather than just "agreement" "assent", etc
Is this a Jordan Peterstein joke or are you serious?
@@no3339 I'm not sure the esteemed Dr Peterson would look too fondly upon my postmodern tendencies
If someone believes that a Catholic dogma is wrong, then definitely don't become a Catholic. Catholic dogmas are required to be believed, as a salvific matter.
@rexlion4510 Not all Catholic Dogma must be believed to be saved. For example, do you believe in The Assumption of Mary? Do you have to believe in The Assumption to be saved? After all, this IS Catholic dogma.
@@Justhumbleme You wrote: "Not all Catholic Dogma must be believed to be saved."
Have you read CCC 88? The Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are official dogmas of the RCC. The CCC says in #88 that a Catholic is required (irrevocably obliged) to adhere to the official dogmas of the church.
Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: "... We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, *_must be_** firmly and constantly believed **_by all_** the faithful"* (DS 2803).
When Pius XII declared the dogma of the Assumption, he included this warning in his “infallible” decree: “Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith....let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
Although I, as a former cradle Catholic who left that denomination, do not abide by the requirements of the RCC, I know that I have eternal life (John 3:14-18; 6:28-29,40,47; 1 John 1:13). I know that no one needs to believe in Marian dogmas or Catholic dogmas to be saved. But you, as a "good" Catholic, are bound to believe many dogmas for your salvation... dogmas which Jesus and the Apostles never taught.
These scriptures explain the Gospel and the means of salvation, as the Apostolic church taught it.
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Joh 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Rom 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
Rom 4:7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;
Rom 4:8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
Let's be clear: _the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus as the Christ (Messiah), the Savior from sin, is set forth by Jesus and the Apostles. Therefore it cannot be controverted by any denomination or by any later tradition,_ no matter what some old fellow wearing fancy robes in the Vatican says.
But after Christ ascended, it only took a couple of decades for some people to begin teaching (falsely) that additional salvific requirements exist. Paul severely warned against this error in his letter to the Galatians:
Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-
Gal 1:7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
The specific salvific requirement added by the false teachers in Galatia was: you must also be circumcised. However, we can see from the warning in Chapter 1 that any addition to the original Gospel (of Christ crucified for our redemption and of salvation through firm belief in Him) is to be rejected and roundly condemned. Thus the specific example flows to the general proposition, that whenever anyone claims that some legalism is a salvific requirement, _their claim must be rejected_ because it contradicts and conflicts with the pure Gospel which Jesus and the Apostles communicated to us.
Therefore, what is our proper response, as faithful Christians, to any denomination which teaches additional salvific requirements? Our response must be to reject those alleged requirements and to consider the denomination in question to have strayed from the true Gospel, for it teaches "another gospel" and it thereby misleads its followers toward perdition. We are called to be "light" and "salt" to the world, so a denomination which teaches another gospel may be likened to salt that has lost its saltiness:
Mat 5:13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.”
The Roman Catholic Church has strayed very far from the Apostolic teachings; the RCC is not the church of the Apostolic age.
There have only been two ex cathedra teachings, EVER, and none since 1950. It's not a huge deal, WAY too much is made out of it. BOTH of them are pretty integral to Catholic beliefs: 1)Mary was immaculately conceived, 2) She ascended into heaven as a body.
@laxinthe303 ex cathedra statements are NOT the only infallible dogmas Rome has established. This is a very big deal for converts.
But respectfully, your statement is still not true. The famous papal bull Unam Sanctum contains every keyword you'd expect to find for declaring an ex cathedra statement (we declare, we proclaim, we define), followed by the infallible teaching that there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic church. This meets all the criteria for ex cathedra: it was made by a pope, in his office on behalf of the church, the teaching is for the entire church, and it's on faith and morals.
The Scriptures are sufficient for salvation.
@@DPK5201 Nothing in the bible says that. The bible isn't even univocal. It distinctly says that faith without works is dead.
@@laxinthe303 agree faith without works is dead! And the Bible also says it is a 'GIFT OF GOD not of works, less any MAN should boast."
the point was that we do not need Tradition to be saved.. we have traditions, but they are not salvific.
Very interesting this. I don't like to call myself a "protestant". I don't like the word. I'm not "protesting" against anything. Those days were the time of Luther. I'm just a "follower of Jesus who believes the bible is the word of God".
From the standpoint of, let's say, evangelicals, the Bible carries all the authority. I think I would battle with this kind of structure. I'm just not used to the concept of truth coming from an organization. Truth is a "thing" that can be determined through experiments or observation. I understand the authority that the apostles had but that was 2000 years ago and they wrote down their teachings. And I can read them today.
Not knocking this, I just think I could not imagine living like this, having to defer to an organization for matters of truth and morality.
As a former Protestant, I would point out that the Bible itself says that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). Jesus Christ said that he was going to establish and build a Church, not a book. St. Paul says that he isn't going to write about everything that he taught them in some of his letters. St. John in his epistles also says that he wants to teach them in person and not write. Hebrews 6 mentions some "basics of the faith" and that he isn't going to go over them again, but they are never spelled out on "how" they should be done anywhere in the Bible. Also, how did we actually get the Bible? It was the Church that put the books together and rejected others.
The NT scriptures followed the teachings of the Church, but not all of what the Apostles taught was written down. This is a modern mindset that we view the Bible as a full on instruction manual that includes everything. The NT was written to supplement the teaching given by the Church. For example, St. John says that the purpose of his gospel was that so people would know that Jesus Christ was the Son of God (Jn. 20). He also says that there was SO much more that Jesus Christ said and did that wasn't written down. Why? Wasn't it important? Or was it passed on through the teaching of the Apostles? We see an example of this in Acts 20:35, St. Paul quotes Jesus as saying, "It is more blessed to give than to receive". But, where is this in the Gospels? Its not found there, but was passed on in the teaching of the Apostles. To use a modern analogy. I look at my grandmother's recipe book and the recipe tells me to scramble some eggs and fold them into the dough. If you (generic usage) have been taught how to cook, then you know what scrambling eggs means and what "fold" means. If you had not been taught "how", then you wouldn't understand the process of the recipe. If it tells you to add a "glug", what is that? Just as most recipe books assume a certain level of skill and knowledge, the Bible assumes a certain amount of knowledge of those coming to it.
Lastly, the Bible does not interpret itself. It requires an authority to give it meaning. All of the early church heresies were people trying to interpret the scriptures for themselves and it went against what was passed on and taught by the Church. Both sides used scripture to support their position. It came down to what has the Church always believed and taught. Without that authority, any person can bring their own interpretation to the Bible and create new doctrines that were never taught before. We see this in Protestantism today. Things being taught through their own interpretations of scripture that were not previously believed. We also see the rise of certain heresies being taught again as "truth", even though they were declared heretical almost 1500 years ago. Why? Because people interpret the Bible how they want and there is no final authority to hold them in check.
Just some food for thought (pun intended lol) on what started to lead me away from Protestantism.
It’s a ‘whole nuther’ conversation, of course, but Catholics would generally agree with your statement that “…authority comes from the Bible…” (and the Bible is a gift to you from the Catholic Church - you’re welcome!). But it is an incomplete statement: authority comes from God’s revealed word, only PART of which was written down in the Bible (as the Bible openly admits). That is why Jesus established an enduring teaching authority on Earth in the form of His church and invested it with the Holy Spirit-inspired authority to bind and to loose.
@@hirakisk1973thank you so much for your efforts on this matter!
I have my self a channel based on the Divine Will but it is not yet teached inside the church, but will be certainly. (There is a english section) if interested 🤔😃
I think Robin is misunderstanding. Truth is truth regardless of who is involved, how, why, etc, the Catholic Church does not claim to create truth, they claim to teach truth. So here is the thing in the catholic Church you have the best of millions, and millions of scholar's work combined for 2,000 years. Verses the best of another smaller groups work. So it is just the fact that if a new guy starts a new Church completely on his own he just has no real chance to get it all right. Did you know Martin Luther's intent was to save the Catholic religion? Did you know most of the Bible authors are unknown? Even Paul's letters are not available we have to trust those are really what Paul wrote. Did you know other than Paul the only other Apostle who wrote is believed to be John. Personally, I will never believe the Gospel of John and the book of Revelations came from the same pen. Did you know the common Bible is from the 1600s not Jesus' time? Did you know the canonization of the Bible occurred in 300s not Jesus' time? Did you know the first attempt at what we call the bible is dated roughly 170 AD? The Catholic Church was form before the New Testament existed? God gave us 13 commandments all oral none written.
@robinconnelly6079
As you don't like and don't consider yourself to be Protestant what one word term would you accept and consider yourself to be.
Christian doesn't work as I am a Christian, but I am not Protestant, or Reformist, or...
*"follower of Jesus who believes the bible is the word of God".* is a bit too long if you see what I mean.
I joined the church in 2019 with great enthusiasm. However, seeing the things that the pope says, most recently about how the US should allow illegal immigration is making me wonder if I joined the right church. Learning of the third secret makes me think that he may be largely responsible for the fulfillment of that secret. Is there anything anyone can say to change my mind before I join one of the eastern churches?
As the video explains there are infallible Papal or Council decisions on faith and morals and non-infallible statements or decrees. The Popes statements on immigration do not necessarily need to be believed by all Catholics. You might want to watch the video again the distinction is clearly explained better than I did..
The Orthodox will claim they never accepted the Pope as the head of the Church appointed by Jesus. However the real, historical reason for their schism as I understand it is their disagreement with the filioque clause which was added to the Nicene Creed after the Arian hersey denied the divinity of Christ.
My suggestion is stay with the Catholic Church either in the Roman/Latin rite or one of the six Eastern rites. You may find one of the Eastern Catholic Churches is just what you’re looking for. God bless you.
@@Spiritof76Catholic thank you 🙏
To be considered an infallible papal teaching the pope must be speaking "ex cathedra". The last time a pope spoke ex cathedra was in 1958. Since Pope Francis did not speak ex cathedra concerning immigration, it is just his opinion. If a pope misuses the ex cathedra pronouncement, then he gets in really serious trouble with God.
The Church of the First Millennium is the one, true, catholic and apostolic Church (now residing with the Orthodox). Since the Great Schism, the Church of Rome has heaped a huge amount of accretions, one on top of another, all the while telling its people that they have to believe and accept or be damned - the Filioque, unleavened bread, Papal supremacy (and later infallibility), Purgatory and the resulting indulgences, original sin and some of the Marian dogmas (particular the co-redemptrix). None of these were believed for the first 1,000+ years and to heap guilt upon guilt on those who sincerely question - is not the work of the Holy Spirit but of Satan.
@@bradb82 Jesus told you to do 3 things
1) Love God (not an issue here)
2) Treat your neighbor as yourself (may or may not be in play here, based on your reasoning)
3) Love others as Jesus loved them (and there is the violation)
So the issue will follow you.
My husband is Catholic and I am not. But if my husband and I use contraception, and he knows it’s a mortal sin, and decides to use contraception anyway, and then he dies in his sleep without repenting, he would go to Hell? Even though Jesus died “for the sins of all the world”, he still goes to Hell?
Someone please help me understand.
He did die for everyone but you have to remain in him. Ultimately it’s up to God and his judgment however I would say that if he believes that it’s definitely a sin and yet he continues to do it, also if your also still willing to it kinda put y’all in a bad place. It will mentally be rough as well for me because he knows it’s wrong and yet continues to anyway and you also allow for it so its not a good place to be in. However mortal sin has to meet criteria as well. For example drug addiction is a little more tricky because they aren’t fully there and in control once addicted so there are a lot of factors that go into it. But at the end of the day God Will decide who is saved and not, we can trust that he will not rip anyone off unfairly at the same time its probably best that you don’t use contraception.
Remove the word contraception, plug any other mortal sin into that question and you will see the truth. Say that he was embezzling money from work. Someone could argue he did it for the good your relationship, that he was providing for his family, that his employer treated him wrong so they deserved it, any number of "good" things can come from it, but at the end of the day it's still theft and unrepentant thieves go to hell.
You ask of Jesus the same question the unrepentant thief crucified with him did. Go read the end of Luke 23. “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” You expect Jesus to save your husband and yourself, but only on your terms. Christ clearly said that's not how this works, that you must be willing to suffer for salvation, that you must take up your cross and follow Him.
Jill, do you love your husband enough to tell him no for one week out of the month? Does he love you enough to control his carnal passion for one week out of four?
Those who argue against contraception often cite the Biblical command at Genesis 1:28. But we are not under that rule anymore since the earth is now heavily populated. The Bible says at 1 Timothy 5:8 that a man is responsible to care for his household and if it’s too big, he might struggle to care for everyone.
NOWHERE in the Bible is birth control or family planning discussed! Family planning should be left up to the couple only. God created sexual relations between husband and wife as a gift. Procreation is NOT their sole purpose. Sexual relations also allows a married couple to express tenderness and affection for each other. If a couple decides to exclude the possibility of a pregnancy by using some form of contraception, that’s their choice to make and no on has a right to judge them. (Romans 14:4, 10-13)
Moral Sin is when we knowingly reject Christ and break the faith which accepts his eternal Sacrifice, therefore we cannot be saved unless we repent.
@@_jillkay this sounds like legalism. Does anyone actually still believe these days that it's possible to fatally sever one's soul from God with a single act?
I’ll respectfully, and politely say that this was entirely a too long and meandering answer to a simple question. If you are going to obstinately say certain infallible teachings are wrong and you are going to do just do your own thing, while Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide his church, this is sin of pride, plain and simple. There is a reason that obedience is among the hardest things we are asked to do.
You clearly didn’t listen to the fact where it talks about how God knows the persons mind and knows what they are rejecting or not they could be rejecting a false idea what Catholicism is. Not sure why my fellow Catholics take such delight in telling everyone that they’re going to hell that’s pride in itself to relish in that. Telling you this is the Latin mass going Trad. God is perfect justice with a perfect all knowing intellect & takes every variable into account.
Just look into it: you might be RIGHT!
The Church has been speaking from both sides of her mouth for quite some time now: the Ordinary magisterium seldom matches the Extraordinary magisterium - Grace being a prime example of this...
What in the world do you mean by this? I hope you're not a Catholic saying such things.
Would you mind expounding on that issue? What specific doctrines might you provide as examples?
@@atobpe Efficient Grace is shunned by the Ordinary magisterium but still very much part of the Extraordinary magisterium.
@@superapex2128 Sorry but I do not see how you expounded to @atopbe. You gave no indication of where you are getting your two Church teaching oppositions.
@@niennunb5070 Well, just look at what the Church does TODAY when it comes to Modernism - which is officially denied by the Extraordinary magisterium but affirmed everywhere else - and understand that the Church has been speaking from both sides of her mouth ever since the Renaissance of Semi-pelagianism in the XVIth century!
You don't have to believe me, look it up for yourself: the Church teaching on Grace has changed DRAMATICALLY ever since and some would argue that our current understanding, being so different from that of saint Augustine and saint Paul, is nothing short of heretical.
Yet it is still taught from the pulpits much the same way as Modernism, even after having been rejected by the Church multiple times in her Extraordinary magisterium, is still very much with us today.
Catholic: "What if I think a Protestant teaching is wrong?"
The official teaching of the Roman Catholic church....is that MUSLIMS go to heaven by 'virtue' of believing one God, and thus are therefore in God's plan of salvation. Now, what if, based on Scripture, I disagree with this?
@soulosxpiotov7280. No, that is improperly spoken. Go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church article one. The Revelation of God. Paragraph 51 forward main help is paragraph 55.
@@niennunb5070 Or go to the scripture which is adamant that salvation is thru Christ alone.
@@niennunb5070 "For he wishes to give eternal life to all those who seek salvation by patience in well-doing."" - wait, so eternal life is is based in well-doing, i.e. GOOD WORKS ?
Not willingly going to Mass on a day of obligation, despite one's deep faith in Christ, is a dogma I have huge issues with. Nowhere in Scripture does it say this, only that Jesus said "if you love me, follow my commandments". Being in a state of mortal sin and thus destined for hell unless one can seek repentance via a priest (Praying to God direct does not count) prior to dying is a worrisome and evil teaching propagated by a Church that seeks to dominate and control its believers.
Holy Days of Obligation and confession through a priest are not Dogma, Doctrine, or ex cathedra teachings. They are correct and ignoring such is a great danger.
It's legalism...Jesus said "my yoke is easy and my burden is light.". No burden of extra biblical works. There are way to many rules placed.on Christians both Catholic and Protestant that don't matter as to ones salvation.
@@whatsup3270Romans 14:5-7 would seem to settle the matter
You can do an act of contrition until you can get to confession. That way you’re forgiven until you can get to confession. But you have to confess directly to God with the understanding that as soon as possible you will go to confession.
no wonder US catholics struggle with guilt...all media pushes you for that.they always want to put u in anxiety toward salvation....
The TRUTH shall make you free. How do you die in your sins? If you BELIEVE NOT that Jesus Christ is the Son of God ye shall die in your sins. Read John. but some people DON'T LIKE THAT ANSWER.
The catholic teachings about Mary, infallible because the pope said? Good reason not to be catholic.
The official teaching of the Roman Catholic church....is that MUSLIMS go to heaven by 'virtue' of believing one God, and thus are therefore in God's plan of salvation. Now, what if, based on Scripture, I disagree with this?
The official teaching is that Muslims _can_ go to Heaven if they are invincibly ignorant of the Gospel and live a life seeking God based on the truth they know.
Do you mean when Peter(The "first Pope") under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Acts 4: 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
The current Pope needs to just give the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and stop making stuff up and venturing into Climate Change and politics!
no, it's not.
@@theSpaghettimeister "Official teaching" - can you show that in the RCC? How about, say, Canaanites, or Mayans and Incas, various Hindi groups like the Thugee's, who sacrificed human beings? Will they go to heaven if they never responded to God's revelation shown in nature?
@@soulosxpiotov7280 CCC 841-848 summarize the teaching that was promulgated Ecumenically and accepted by Papal authority at Vatican II.
All good things in all religions can only come from Christ - for God alone is the source of all good things - but their revelation is incomplete and their salvation is not assured. However, it is possible in ways only known to God to lead those through Christ even unto salvation those who do not sufficiently know the Gospel (and are thus, categorically, not rejecting the Gospel if they still seek God)
The only positive claim is that the Muslims follow the faith of Abraham, that is to say a belief in the one transcendent, all-good God who is the source of all Creation.