What DOES the RCC teach their people?


#1

This is meant in all seriousness here…there is another (Catholic) member here that knows me and has seen the same.

I have several Catholic friends and most have been consistent. However, lately, I’ve been running into quite a few Catholics that say:

The Bible is a bunch of stories
Their priest teaches that the miracles of Christ didn’t really happen
Noah’s flood may have been localised, but may not have happened at all
They are Catholic, but don’t believe in Transubstantiation of the Eucharist, that it’s just a nice spiritual ceremony, and their priest doesn’t say there is anything wrong with this (or perhaps they simply haven’t discussed it with their priest?) Even as a Reformed person, we hold Communion to be more than a "nice spiritual ceremony"
The Catholic church doesn’t take a stand on Creation

One Catholic stated that she was in shock over this, but when she found out which diocese one person attended said that that diocese was practically considered heretical by the rest (then why isn’t the Catholic Church stepping in and doing something…)

Could someone explain this to me…either the variety permitted or not permitted. And what is which a diocese that just tosses everything as simply being “good morality building helps” (this would be more like the UUC, yes?) :shrug:


#2

It’s not “the RCC,” it’s the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

For Catholic teaching about scriptural inspiration, I recommend this encyclical by Pope Leo XIII:

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13provi.htm


#3

Yes, I just realised that I shortened again (and the edit button was missing when I came to fix it)…not certain the title of the thread could handle the entire phrase Roman Catholic Church. I personally cannot use the term, “one holy” as I believe that that is applied to the spiritual church not the organisation. It would be dishonest of me to do so. If I were Catholic, then I would understand that it would be expected. As a non-Catholic, I cannot say that which goes against my conscience. I do not mind spelling out Catholic Church. My apologies.

Thank you for the link. :slight_smile:


#4

From section 10. of the link given me above:

Now, we have to meet the Rationalists, true children and inheritors of the older heretics, who, trusting in their turn to their own way of thinking, have rejected even the scraps and remnants of Christian belief which had been handed down to them. They deny that there is any such thing as revelation or inspiration, or Holy Scripture at all; they see, instead, only the forgeries and the falsehoods of men; they set down the Scripture narratives as stupid fables and Iying stories: the prophecies and the oracles of God are to them either predictions made up after the event or forecasts formed by the light of nature; the miracles and the wonders of God’s power are not what they are said to be, but the startling effects of natural law, or else mere tricks and myths; and the Apostolic Gospels and writings are not the work of the Apostles at all. These detestable errors, whereby they think they destroy the truth of the divine Books, are obtruded on the world as the peremptory pronouncements of a certain newly-invented “free science;” a science, however, which is so far from final that they are perpetually modifying and supplementing it

Is this not what is happening when a priest tells his parishioners that Scripture is nothing more than a “good stories” and not to be taken as actual events? I was stunned to say the least. This is not what I thought Catholicism taught. I am glad to see the quote above, however, and that the link lifts up Scripture.


#5

not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;[40] a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate. Neither should those passages be neglected which the Fathers have understood in an allegorical or figurative sense, more especially when such interpretation is justified by the literal, and when it rests on the authority of many.

okay, and what parts are these. Do any of these apply to the above?

Would anyone be willing to directly state where the Catholic Church stands on the list in the OP?


#6

I’m afraid I have to agree with you entirely about the scenario you mention. The newfangled doctrine you have described is known as Modernism, and there are papal documents on this subject beginning with the successor of Leo XIII, St. Pius X (1903-1914).

I’m just going to post a brief one about the measures that had to be taken a century ago to defend the integrity of Divine Revelation and scriptural inspiration.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10prasc.htm


#7

Scottish Colleen

Dei Verbum,
Divino Afflante Spiritu
Providentissimus Deus
The Historicity of the Gospels by The Pontifical Biblical Commission

These are the documents given to us by the Church herself. In them we can cut right to ther heart of what we as Catholics believe about the Bible. Do not listen to anyone who tells you their own opinion as a Catholic. It’s unfair to the Church that these people are speaking on her behalf. Read the actual documents to get at the truth of what we believe.


#8

Catechism of the Catholic Church


#9

When you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches – the official teaching – go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

What individual Catholics believe, what a ‘Catholic’ professor says in class, what an individual Priest may say on any given Sunday morning SHOULD match up with the *Catechism. *

If it doesn’t, guess what trumps?

One great thing about the Catholic Church is that we acutally HAVE doctrinal statements. My journey to Rome began when a priest said to me that we should judge the Church by what she teaches and not by what some people claim that she teacges or by what sinners bearing the Catholic label have done in the past.

Makes a lot of sense.


#10

They are Catholic, but don’t believe in Transubstantiation of the Eucharist, that it’s just a nice spiritual ceremony, and their priest doesn’t say there is anything wrong with this (or perhaps they simply haven’t discussed it with their priest?)

I have concerns about all of the points/errors raised, but this one takes the biscuit. My immediate reaction is “well, then, they’re not Catholic”!

Like others have said, we have to be careful of our faith being polluted by modernism. Sadly these days there are far too many Catholics in name only.


#11

Sad indeed. I have to admit the same happens in our churches as well. We have many that study for themselves on top of what is taught (Paul and the Bereans). But there are those that just take what is said and that’s that.


#12

Even as a non-catholic, that was my reaction :rolleyes:

Question, and in honesty to get more of a feel about the Catholic Church…what is the Catholic Church doing about modernism (aside from something put out nearly 100yrs ago…what is it doing today)? And btw, thank you for the link, I will look at it.

Unfortunately for one friend of mine…it is HER PRIEST that is teaching some of these things. And she holds that as authority of the Catholic Church. (not the Eucharist part…that was another person)

It makes conversation stop, because even though I’m not Catholic, it’s not what the Catholics I know have been taught. And the reason given by her is that “the Catholic Church doesn’t take a stand on these things”.


#13

I HEAR you!

Actually, if you’re Catholic and you "just take what is [oficially] said, you would do very well!

It’s when people in authoritative positions (or those not in authoritative positions but who have a gift for swagger & pontification) state things not in accord with sound teaching and people believe them that they get in trouble.

How many times have we heard Catholics say things like “My priest told me that contraception isn’t a sin!” Sigh.


#14

I just want to thank you all for taking the time to answer :slight_smile: It was very helpful. And I’m more encouraged by this kind of spirit.


#15

#16

The Bible is the inspired and inerrant written word of God.
Their priest teaches that the miracles of Christ didn’t really happenPoppycock. If he did not work miracles, what was he: the Wizard of Oz?
Noah’s flood may have been localised, but may not have happened at allNot sure but I think this one might be up for grabs. The Church is surprisingly wary of making declaractions about what one MUST believe. There are only about a dozen passages of Scripture that we MUST interpret in only one way.

They are Catholic, but don’t believe in Transubstantiation of the Eucharist, that it’s just a nice spiritual ceremony, and their priest doesn’t say there is anything wrong with this (or perhaps they simply haven’t discussed it with their priest?) Even as a Reformed person, we hold Communion to be more than a “nice spiritual ceremony”

Gag. You seem to know better than they do (since you use the word “transubstantiation”) what the Church teaches. And yes: I’ll bet they have never brought it up with their pastor.

The Catholic church doesn’t take a stand on Creation

Yes it does. It does not take a stand on old-earth versus young-earth creation but Catholics are definitely required to believe the God created everything that exists.

One Catholic stated that she was in shock over this, but when she found out which diocese one person attended said that that diocese was practically considered heretical by the rest (then why isn’t the Catholic Church stepping in and doing something…)

If you find out, let us know, will ya?

Sometimes the reputed big bad bully-power of what some Protestants refer to as “The Roman Catholic Organization” has only limited control over individual bishops. Often we don’t see what is going on “back stage”.

Could someone explain this to me…either the variety permitted or not permitted. And what is which a diocese that just tosses everything as simply being “good morality building helps” (this would be more like the UUC, yes?) :shrug:

I don’t know what you’re asking here. ?? UUC? morality building?

You are DEFINITELY ready for the Catechism


#17

MercyGate, I’m sitting here laughing…you are so refreshing. I almost bought the Catechism of the Catholic Church last night (hubby opted for The Catholic Way to go along with Augustine’s Confessions that he’s been wanting so bad).

Apparently the gal on the Eucharist subject has brought it up and said that apparently her priest says it doesn’t keep her from being Catholic (I guess in name only, no…sigh, religion is not just some feel good thing, there are other types of churches that cater to that I thought).

The explaination of miracles was the example of fish and bread (apparently the other miracles run the same way). Where children were, women were, food was. Jesus just “inspired everyone to share” thus there ended up being more than enough to go around and that (the sharing) was the miracle. :shrug:

Noah’s flood (I do believe there is evidence it was worldwide and that is my stand), but I understand the argument of worldwide vs local. But to say it may not have happened at all vs local flood is opening a can of worms to say the least.

The stand on Creation you stated is how it was stated to me (God did it, but how…6day or evolution…is up for debate). Thanks for clarifying :slight_smile:

UUC (united unitarian church…pretty much open from anything from catholicism to witchcraft, but socially minded…as stated by several of their own members)


#18

Scottish Colleen
I believe there are Catholics that have had poor catechism and priests as well. We have priests in our diocese that do not follow what should be done at mass for example. PPL who do not follow the core teachings of the faith are not really Catholic. I know who you speak of that doesn’t believe in transubstantiation and really by taking part in communion she is hurting her soul. Not to mention the fact she realy goes against everything the church teaches on morals like abortion and gay marriage.
As far as creation, I was taught that we did come from 1 man and 1 woman. Actually there have been studies that prove that all the blood lines today can be traced back to 1 man and 1 woman. So yes we came by way of adam and eve. I am going to think some more and add more later.


#19

Thanks, Shari :wink:
Just the build up of hearing this coming from several Catholics was surprising to me, considering what I have heard in the past from Catholics. So what better to do than to ask place where there are strongly practicing Catholics (and ones that know their sources) what the Catholic Church REALLY teaches and why the difference in what I’m hearing.


#20

I like you. You have integrity and SPUNK!


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