Rejecting Certain Doctrines As A Catholic

[dairygirl4u2c]

so the pain of rejecting certain doctrines as a catholic is damnation. this is the case with say papal infallibility, and say the assumption of mary. i think it goes with any defined doctrines.

so where is the quotes that say that this is the case first of call?
i know those "there is no salvation outside the catholic church... and unless you hold it in its entirety etc then you're damned"

but on those quotes. "no aslvation outside... " "limbo doesn't exist" etc etc. there are catholics who like to say the catholic church didn't contradict itself, due to them never teaching that limbo was a false doctrine, or that the church never taught a "lenient" understanding of "no salvation outside the church". there are catholics who hold various views in a way to understand how these doctrines are all reconcilable with each other. and that goes for more than just these doctrines, but doctriens that are debateable more generally.

does this debate and uncertainty they have, then, translate into their damnation? i know plenty of devout good catholics who think "no salvation outside..." or whatever was never officially made lenient. does that mean they are damned?
or even more catholics who say "i don'tk now what the true teachging is, but the church never err's and i start with that and the rest follows". given they are not accepting current teaching speifically and are in a way rejecting it with their uncertainties etc, doesn't that mean they are damned too? sure, they may be forming their conscious etc, but at a certain point when it's spelled out, doesn't that mean they are damned for it?
(and if we said no they are not damned too mjuch uncertainty, shouldn't that extend to noncatholics as well? or just because they dont insist on infalliblity and the rest following after they are damned?)

or to add another political element to it. what about catholics who say we hsould use the death pentalty to enact vengence or simply to ease an overburdened prison system (instead of reforming it or keeping them in jail)? some say priests should deny them the eucharist, should it be taken another step further and is the natural next \step to say they are probably damned? if we're denying people eucharist, i'd think it not too much further to say they are damned at least as far as we can tell, given no one can really know these things.

Edited September 8, 2012 by dairygirl4u2c

[Groo the Wanderer]

please refer to all your older posts. we've already been over these points together, my dear

[Ed Normile]

Something about binding and loosing maybe ...

ed

[BarbTherese]

If one denies one doctrine, one is thus making all doctrine suspect since denying one doctrine brings immediately into question the infallibility of the Pope and all declared doctrines. If infallibility does not apply in one instance, then infallibility can theoretically be questioned in all instances. Infallibility means that the Holy Father can never make a mistake in matters of Faith and Morals. Also, "He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects your rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me" (Luke 10. 16). And yes, what Ed posted "whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it is bound also in Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it is loosed also in Heaven"

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura4.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/...ings/chura4.htm[/url]

We can never know, nor should ever say that a person is damned or not damned. We cannot know and are called to be non judgemental in order to be not judged ourselves. Certainly, we can know in an objective sense if something is morally right or wrong and whether gravely wrong or not. This is an objective statement and we can certainly state that some behaviour might be running the danger of serious sin if grave matter is involved, remembering that truth without love can only be half the truth. On the subjective side re any individual person or groups of persons, the question of whether he or she, they, is or is not damned, we cannot know beyond any doubt for Judgement is The Lord's alone. "Man judges appearances, but The Lord KNOWS the heart" (Book of Samuel Ch1 V16) In other words we can only ever know in part, while The Lord knows all.

Edited September 9, 2012 by BarbaraTherese

[LouisvilleFan]

Dairy, how about getting out of the house and breathing some fresh air? And do anything (good, of course) besides thinking about theology. There's a whole world out there to explore God will handle sorting out the sheep and goats while you enjoy life a little.

Edited September 12, 2012 by LouisvilleFan

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' timestamp='1347180864' post='2480540']
If one denies one doctrine, one is thus making all doctrine suspect since denying one doctrine brings immediately into question the infallibility of the Pope and all declared doctrines. If infallibility does not apply in one instance, then infallibility can theoretically be questioned in all instances. Infallibility means that the Holy Father can never make a mistake in matters of Faith and Morals. Also, "He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects your rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me" (Luke 10. 16).
[/quote]
Not intending to be facetious, Just meaning this as a question. What about when they fail? Such as in sinful priests and those higher up that made the decision to hide the problem rather than being proactive in excising evil from the Church. I think a major misunderstanding is people confuse doctrine with other things. Luke 10:16 maybe refers to faithful teaching of what Christ taught the apostles. Does it mean to include anything that they themselves assume?

Edited September 13, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1347496652' post='2481833']
Not intending to be facetious, Just meaning this as a question. What about when they fail? Such as in sinful priests and those higher up that made the decision to hide the problem rather than being proactive in excising evil from the Church. I think a major misunderstanding is people confuse doctrine with other things. Luke 10:16 maybe refers to faithful teaching of what Christ taught the apostles. Does it mean to include anything that they themselves assume?
[/quote]

Yes, Luke 10:16 is referring to the apostles and those faithful to apostolic teaching. Rejecting a priest's or bishop's sin is likewise being faithful to Christ.

[Papist]

[url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm"]http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm[/url]

[Selah]

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat about Melkites?

[Groo the Wanderer]

look rocking to me

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sorROlX1Z70/Tec2Gc9xI1I/AAAAAAAAAFA/PCagoVFAG3E/s1600/synod-bishops-1.jpg[/img]

[mortify]

See section on theological certainties

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_dogma"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_dogma[/url]

[BarbTherese]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1347496652' post='2481833']
Not intending to be facetious, Just meaning this as a question. What about when they fail? Such as in sinful priests and those higher up that made the decision to hide the problem rather than being proactive in excising evil from the Church. I think a major misunderstanding is people confuse doctrine with other things. Luke 10:16 maybe refers to faithful teaching of what Christ taught the apostles. Does it mean to include anything that they themselves assume?
[/quote]

Apologies for my late response! I thought I had replied but obviously not - my reply underscored that of LouisvilleFan.