Some of their teaching are had to belief

Some of their teachings are hard to believe

What in your opinion are these teachings?

God Bless you


Given the purpose of this sub-forum, this presumes non-Catholics as “they/their.” I cannot say very much about doctrine in general over all religions.

Some doctrines are reasonable (e.g., theology proper within Western Christianity is unchanged between Protestants and Catholics) and some beliefs are odd to me (e.g., ancient Greek polytheism and the gods’ squabbles).

A lot of their teachings are well- nigh impossible to believe.
I think a lot of those teachings are either adiaphora made compulsory, or convenient innovations made to enhance the power of a particular office.

*Is there a list of infallible teachings?
By Kevin P. Considine | 8 Comments | Print this pagePrint | Email this pageShare
Most Catholics have a pet list of teachings that they wish would be declared infallibly, or ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter). Odds are that these often revolve around hot-button issues like women’s ordination, gay marriage, or the reform of the liturgy.

Personally, I’d like there to be an infallible teaching declaring a universal procedure for lining up for communion. I’ve had egg on my face many times after unwittingly cutting off a few nice, elderly church ladies in the communion line while visiting parishes where I didn’t know the local procedure. But that’s my own ax to grind.

There is no set list of ex cathedra teachings, but that’s because there are only two, and both are about Mary: **her Immaculate Conception (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and grandfathered in after the First Vatican Council’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870) **and her bodily Assumption into heaven (declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950).

But neither of these was earth-shattering to Roman Catholics, because these beliefs had been nurtured through devotion, prayer, and local teaching for centuries before becoming official papal teaching.

Ex cathedra is the theological term for a teaching that has been declared infallibly by the Roman Pontiff. In short,** ex cathedra means that the pope can explicate an article of divine revelation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in full possession of his role as Peter’s successor. When he does so he is protected from error. This ex cathedra possibility was supported by the Second Vatican Council. **However, this does not mean that every time the pope speaks he is speaking infallibly.

Even though only two doctrines have been declared ex cathedra, there are many others that the church professes must be believed. Some of these are laid out in the 1998 “Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei” issued by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

According to this document, many teachings are “irreformable” and “definitive” and as such can be seen as possessing the binding quality of an infallible doctrine, although not necessarily proclaimed ex cathedra. That is, they aren’t promulgated by the pope himself but by the larger magisterium of the church. The lineup of “irreformable” teachings—ones divinely revealed—include those regarding Jesus, Mary, sin and grace, the sacraments, the primacy of the pope, and the doctrinal formulations of the ancient creeds.

The lineup of “definitive” teachings on faith and morals—ones the church holds to be logically derived from divine revelation—include teachings such as the doctrine of papal infallibility, the immorality of abortion and euthanasia, the communion of saints, and others. Assent of “intellect and will” to both categories of teachings are required for full communion with the Catholic Church.

Be that as it may, I’ll continue to wait for the ex cathedra declaration about the communion line. The patience of those church ladies is wearing thin.

This article appeared in the June 2011 issue of U.S. Catholic (Vol. 76, No. 6, pages 44-46).*

It just seems like a bunch of unnecessary burdens to put on folks. To be a good Catholic, you must believe each and every thing that the Church teaches without question. Why? These teachings tend to evolve, do they not? I’ve seen strictly conservative parishes in the Diocese of Arlington and parishes whose priests teach things that are so liberal in the Diocese of Richmond it’s difficult to believe that they belong to the same Church. Why not just be content with the basic Truths of the Christian Faith? The Authority of Scripture, the primacy of faith as taught in Scripture and the Sacraments of Holy Baptism, Confession and Absolution as well as the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?



I can never tell if you’re really asking something or canvasing for a paper. :confused:


Some of their teaching are had to belief

** This smacks of auto-correct.

I am a Catholic and therefore there may be biased. Sometimes I do think after listening to ‘their’ explanation that how somethings that are so clear and obvious can be not understood and not seen for what they are; and that they have to resort into much difficult route to explain their positions.

The two mentioned issues are:

(1) That the body and blood in John 6 are not body and blood of Jesus and,

(2) That the rock in Mathew 16 is not referring to Peter.

I know these topics have been discussed many times, there is no need to do it again. I am just responding to the thread. :slight_smile:

John 6 points to the last supper eucharistic narratives. The entire “symbolic” eucharistic argument fails, as Jesus spoke the words of consecration after the time frame in which He spoke to them in parables. The scripture (John 16:25-29) says that Jesus spoke to them plainly so that they could understand. They did, and so the Eucharist has been believed in for 2,000 years.

Thank you, so lets talk about the ones you find :odd"



Awwww shucks:)

I just wish to discuss any doctrins. dogmas or practices of the RCC that you finf strange or bewildering:D



And the answer lies in these bible teaching IMO

:Isaiah 55:8 -9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts.

Why humanity was Created
Eph.11: “13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 which

Rom.9: 18 “What then are we to say? Is there injustice on the part of God? Of course not! For he says to Moses: “I will show mercy to whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will.” So it depends not upon a person’s will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy. “

Rom. 9:15 “For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

Job.17: 4 “Since thou hast closed their minds to understanding, therefore thou wilt not let them triumph.

2nd. Cor. 4:3-4 “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.

Col.2: 8 “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ”

Romans 9: 18 “So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.”

Eph. 4: 17-18 “Now this I affirm and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds; they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart;”

It seems to Me that God has to GRANT right understnaing

Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another Verse, passage or teaching:

Were this even the slightest possibility; [it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or learn Christ Faith”

2Peter 1: 19-21
And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

***[Douay explanation]
[20] No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation: This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise. End Quote***s

“Whenever something is good it does not depend on us getting our way, but on God getting His way, and whether we do God’s Will depends on us [humbly] loving God. Moreover to love God we must [actually] know God, [not just know OF God].” Bread of Life booklet January 9, 2016”[Mt 7:21]

The Immaculate Conception.
Papal infallibility.
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven.
Mary as " Queen of Heaven."
Non- attendance of Mass on Sundays and other HDOs as a mortal sin.
Clerical celibacy
Plenary Indulgences
Mortal sins as opposed to venial sins. Why the distinction? A sin is a sin.
Catholic and Orthodox Churches as the " only true churches," while other Christian bodies are referred to as " ecclesial ( doesn’t that mean churchly?) bodies, but not really churches."
I get closed Communion and I respect that.
Veneration of saints beyond that of imitating their examples and honoring their lives ( prayers to saints, various pilgrimages).
The BVM’s house in Israel being transported angelically to Loretto.
Reverencing the Host outside of the actual Sacrament of Communion.

That’s all for now. I must get to work.

Understand the objection there from a protestant perspective.

Papal infallibility.

Sort of understand the objection, but I think Matt 16 supports it.

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven.

Understand the objection there from a protestant perspective. But it makes plenty of sense that the Mother of God be treated as such.

Mary as " Queen of Heaven."

Definitely understand the objection there from a protestant perspective. But REV 12 clears that up as the Church has always understood that to mean Mary - yes it’s the Church, but when speaking about the individuals, it’s referring to Jesus and Mary.

Non- attendance of Mass on Sundays and other HDOs as a mortal sin.

This was a easy one to accept because we should be worshiping God. To not do that w/o a good reason is rejecting him the same way we reject him by sinning, imo.

Clerical celibacy

Scriptural support for both sides. I think celibacy is better and many protestant ministers actually envy Catholic Priests because they don’t have to juggle family and Church.:shrug:


Less scriptural, more common sense and
Church tradition. But I found this teaching easy to accept.

Plenary Indulgences

understand the protestant objection. If they don’t believe in keys then they cant fathom indulgences and never will.

Mortal sins as opposed to venial sins. Why the distinction? A sin is a sin.

Jesus made the distinction between sins and so did John.

Catholic and Orthodox Churches as the " only true churches," while other Christian bodies are referred to as " ecclesial ( doesn’t that mean churchly?) bodies, but not really churches."

I think Pope Benedict referred to them as ecclesial communities. Not meant to be insulting, just recognizing the lack of authority and unity in protestantism. I think if a miracle happened and they started agreeing with one another and formed one big body with a hierarchy, the attitude of the Church changes and the terminology used to describe them as well…

Veneration of saints beyond that of imitating their examples and honoring their lives ( prayers to saints, various pilgrimages).

Understand the protestant objection as they think this will take your eyes off Jesus, but it does not imo.

Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is **guilty of a greater sin.”
John 19:11


So pick the one you want to discuss MOST and send me a private message on the others and we can discuss them too:thumbsup:

God Bless you


Originally Posted by LutheranScholar View Post
Mortal sins as opposed to venial sins. Why the distinction? A sin is a sin.[/End quote]

Originally Posted by LutheranScholar View Post
Mortal sins as opposed to venial sins. Why the distinction? A sin is a sin[end quote]

This link will show the rebuttal to the claim that Christ had Peter the man in mind rather than Peter’s Confession as the Rock upon which His Church would be built. Here is a relevant excerpt from that particular link:
*Who is the Rock of Matthew 16? Luther states:

The Lord then says, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock will I build my church.” In St. John 1 :42], he calls him Cephas, “You shall be called Cephas,” Keph in Hebrew, Kepha in Chaldean, and Petros or Petra in Greek, Rupes in Latin, all of which mean rock in German—like the high rocks the castles are built on. Now the Lord wants to say, “You are Peter, that is, a man of rock. For you have recognized and named the right Man, who is the true rock, as Scripture names him, Christ. On this rock, that is, on me, Christ, I will build all of my Christendom, just as you and the other disciples are built on it through my Father in heaven, who revealed it to you.” In plain German one would say, “You say (on behalf of all) that I am the Messiah or Christ, the Son of the living God; very well then,** I say to you, you are a Christian, and I shall build my church on a Christian.**” For in German the word “Christ” means both the Lord himself, as one sings, “Christ the Lord is risen, Christ ascended to heaven,”127 and he who believes in the Lord Christ, as one says, “You are a Christ.” Thus Luke in Acts 11 :26] says that the disciples in Antioch were first called Christians, which is why names have survived such as, “Christians, Christendom, Christian faith,” etc. So here our Lord gives Simon, son of Jona, the name “man of rock” or “Christian” because he, from the Father, recognized the rock, or Christ, and praised him with his mouth on behalf of all the apostles.

From this it is clear enough that by the building of his church on the rock or on himself, Christ meant nothing else but (as was said above, from the apostles Peter and Paul) the common Christian faith, that whoever believes in Christ is built on this rock and will attain salvation, even against all the gates of hell; whoever does not believe in Christ is not built on this rock and must be damned, with all the gates of hell. This is the simple, single, certain understanding of these words, and there can be no other. This the words clearly and convincingly prove, and they agree with the words in the last chapter of Mark [16:16], “He who believes and is baptized will be saved,” and with John 11 :26], “Whoever believes in me shall never die.” Yes, I say, remember well and mark diligently that the Lord in Matthew 16 does not speak of laws, Ten Commandments, or the works we should or could do, but of the Christian faith or the work of the Father, which he, with the Son and the Holy Spirit, performs in us, namely, that he spiritually builds us on the rock, his Son, and teaches us to believe in Christ, that we might become his house and dwelling, as is proven in I Peter 2 :4–7] and Ephesians 2 :19–22].

Further, “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:19Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)]. The Lord wants to provide well for his churches, built on him and believing in him. Because they should preach and confess the gospel before the whole world and govern on the basis that Christ Jesus is the Son of God, he wants to have their words honored and not scorned, as though he were speaking personally from heaven. Now he who hears the gospel from the apostles or churches and does not want to believe should be sentenced to be damned. Again, if he should fall after he has believed and will not convert back to faith, he should be sentenced in the same way—he should keep his sins and be damned. On the other hand, he who hears and believes the gospel, or turns from his sins back to faith, should have his sins forgiven and should attain salvation. And he will consider such a verdict in heaven as if he had spoken it himself. See, these are the keys of the kingdom of heaven and they should be used to give eternal retention and remission of sins in the church, not just at the time of baptism, or once in a lifetime, but continuously until the end—retention for the unrepentant and unbelievers, remission for the repentant and believers.

And here remember once again, and write it upon your heart, that the Lord does not speak here of laws or the works we should do, but of his works, namely, of retention and remission of sins. To retain or forgive sins is the work of the divine majesty alone. But he wants to perform and accomplish these works of his through his church; that is why he says that whatever it will bind or loose on earth should be bound or loosed by him in heaven. That is why, too, the two items follow one another in the Children’s Creed, “I believe in one holy Christian church, the communion of saints, forgiveness of sins”; so, where the church is, namely, the building on the rock, there are the keys to the forgiveness of sins. [LW 41:314-315]*

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit