V
victus
Guest
This is also a little misleading, because Catholics also believe, we are saved by God’s Grace. Not just through faith and works.
- Status
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Yes, I meant that.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Of course he is a sinner. The Catholic Church acknowledges that but the Holy Spirit preserve the Church from this.
Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: **and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. **
This is the bases of papal infallibility.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
A lot of Protestants believe we are save by works. That is so not true. We are saved by God’s Church.
C
Cat
Guest
From what I have read of Luther in Protestant histories of the Christian Church, I think that Luther was badly and stupidly mishandled by the Catholic Church.
They assumed that he was just a rabble rouser who would shut up once he was disciplined.
There are many people who back down when faced with adversity. But there are others who become stronger and more determined when people throw obstacles in their path.
You all know these people. Do you have a work associate who will fight to the bitter end to make sure that the coffee pot repair is paid for out of petty cash like the policy states, not personal funds?! That person will go through thousands of pages of company policy to prove their point. They’ll schedule meetings and write letters and print out fliers and set up a boycott of coffee and even go up through the ranks all the way to the CEO of the company if necessary in order to make sure that the CORRECT funds are used to pay for that COFFEE POT! Sometimes that person will resign rather than work for a company that refuses to adhere to policy.
The rest of us would just drop it and chip in to pay for a new coffee pot.
Hitler was one of these people. All the adversity that came his way just made him more determined to bring about his agenda. Many people would have given up after being rejected twice for art school, but not Hitler. Many people would have given up after being injured in the war, but not Hitler. Many other people would have just given up after the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch, but not Hitler. Many people would have given up after nearly being blown up by Stauffenberg, but not Hitler. Many people would have given up when his own GENERALS told him that Germany was losing the war, but not Hitler. No matter what you think of him (monster), you have to admire his will.
And I believe that Luther was one of these people.
The best way that the Church could have dealt with Luther was to listen to him, work with him, make concessions in the areas that he was correct (and he WAS correct about the sale of indulgences), praise him for helping to bring about the good changes, and include him in future policy decisions.
That’s the way to handle a person with a strong will. With love and respect.
Instead, the Church ignored him–the worst possible way to handle a person with a strong will. Kicking him out was also a bad idea. It just made his will stronger.
They assumed that he was just a rabble rouser who would shut up once he was disciplined.
There are many people who back down when faced with adversity. But there are others who become stronger and more determined when people throw obstacles in their path.
You all know these people. Do you have a work associate who will fight to the bitter end to make sure that the coffee pot repair is paid for out of petty cash like the policy states, not personal funds?! That person will go through thousands of pages of company policy to prove their point. They’ll schedule meetings and write letters and print out fliers and set up a boycott of coffee and even go up through the ranks all the way to the CEO of the company if necessary in order to make sure that the CORRECT funds are used to pay for that COFFEE POT! Sometimes that person will resign rather than work for a company that refuses to adhere to policy.
The rest of us would just drop it and chip in to pay for a new coffee pot.
Hitler was one of these people. All the adversity that came his way just made him more determined to bring about his agenda. Many people would have given up after being rejected twice for art school, but not Hitler. Many people would have given up after being injured in the war, but not Hitler. Many other people would have just given up after the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch, but not Hitler. Many people would have given up after nearly being blown up by Stauffenberg, but not Hitler. Many people would have given up when his own GENERALS told him that Germany was losing the war, but not Hitler. No matter what you think of him (monster), you have to admire his will.
And I believe that Luther was one of these people.
The best way that the Church could have dealt with Luther was to listen to him, work with him, make concessions in the areas that he was correct (and he WAS correct about the sale of indulgences), praise him for helping to bring about the good changes, and include him in future policy decisions.
That’s the way to handle a person with a strong will. With love and respect.
Instead, the Church ignored him–the worst possible way to handle a person with a strong will. Kicking him out was also a bad idea. It just made his will stronger.
B
BelFarfalla
Guest
I’m going to address one of the last statements you made first (the above quote). You assume because Luther said that the Catholic Church sold indulgences that this was indeed church doctrine or policy. But it was not. There were a few individual priests who sold them but in doing so they were going against the Church. The Church as handling this problem long before Luther said anything about it. When the Vatican would get word of a priest/bishop who was selling indulgences they would discipline the individual.
When Luther posted his 95 Theses and otherwise spoke out about the Church’s policy on indulgences he was either grossly misunderstood the church policy or he was outright lying. We do not know which. But despite the Church discussing this with him at length he continued to spread lies about what the Church’s stance was. He was accusing the Church of supporting wrongs done by individuals. Now why did Luther continue to spread lies?
He is not the guy trying to get the coffee pot fixed in your analogy. Instead he watched some other guy break the coffee pot when no one was looking. Then accused the company of doing it so that they could control what coffee their employees drink. There is nothing noble in perpetuating such a lie.
B
BelFarfalla
Guest
He was a rabble rouser. That is obvious from the fact that much of what he said about the Church was not true. The issue of his misrepresentation of the Church’s position on indulgences is proof of this. When did he once openly admit to the many many Vatican and Papal actions against Priests who misused indulgences? When did he once tell people about the things the Church was doing to stop those who misused indulgences for personal gain?
Can you explain what an indulgence is and what a person does to get one?
……
The best way that the Church could have dealt with Luther was to listen to him, work with him, make concessions in the areas that he was correct (and he WAS correct about the sale of indulgences), praise him for helping to bring about the good changes, and include him in future policy decisions.
That’s the way to handle a person with a strong will. With love and respect.
Again your praising Luther as though he had anything to do with bring any changes related to indulgences is silly because the Church changed nothing about their doctrine/policy on indulgences based on Luther. They were already going after the priests who were illegally selling indulgences. As for Luther’s attack on clergy who were more interested in person gain and personal wealth, the Church already had a counsel in operation specifically to address this issue. It existed long before Luther’s bringing up the issue.
If he truly had the good will of the church in mind he would have acknowledged that the Church was already addressing these and many other issues.
Do you think that Luther had any responsibility to treat the Church and his fellow clergy with love and respect? Or was Luther the only one deserving of love and respect in your view?
So you think that the Church should have changed its doctrine… such as that of the Pope, forgiveness of sins, the use of Sacred Traditions, the church’s teaching authority, etc just because Martin Luther made a loud stink? Do you think that the Church should change its doctrine every time someone raises a loud stink because they disagree with Church doctrine?
F
FCEGM
Guest
You are doing yeoman’s work here, Bel!
Something I often note with non-Catholics such as our new participant is that they have a great discomfort with the thought that anyone could possibly be more advanced spiritually than they. Everyone in their eyes is equally a saint and a sinner, with no one able to be so transformed by grace past a “Jesus and me” moment as to be the true and fully human person he or she was created to be in Christ.
C
cslink
Guest
What a blessing it was to Peter to have God inspire him to write his word. It must have been a true wonder to walk the earth with our Lord and see his greatness first hand.
Was Peter infallible, no he was a man that at times was tempted and failed and at times shine as Christ disciple. On a posting, early on this thread I wrote of Peter’s history and will add a few more points that I feel are relevant to your posting.
Peter preached the sermon on Pentecost Day when about 3,000 were added to the church. It was to Peter that God gave a special vision and the realization that in Christ He accepts Jews and Gentiles alike. In the Epistles, we also find a few references to Peter. We learn that Paul needed to correct Peter in Antioch because of his inconsistent way in associating with Gentiles. Peter evidently received Paul’s correction in a loving, brotherly way ([Gal. 2:11-21]). A reference in [1 Cor. 9:5] indicates that Peter did much traveling for the sake of the Gospel and that on his travels he was accompanied by his wife.
As God states in Gal 2: 11-21 Peter was corrected in his teachings by Paul. He was not infallible and so the theory of papal infallibility does not hold up by scripture teachings.
In an earlier posting, there was a statement of why Priest cannot marry. It is clearly a false restriction to stop them from marrying. If you are going to hold up Peter as one of the leaders of the Church of Christ, which I believe he was, then you have to believe his words inspired by God are true. 1Cor. 9:5; Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and brothers of the Lord, and Kephas. Do not just take this verse but also read all of chapter 9 to get the context of why he was writing this.
If some want to serve the Lord with a promise of chastity great, God bless him for his devotion. However, to restrict marriage goes against scripture and has had very bad ramifications in the Catholic church past and present.
The papal is not infallibility only God and his Word.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Apparently you are listening on deaf ears. Papal Infallibility is as following.
2051 The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith.”
890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
It is given by God to Men such as the Apostles. They have this authority, we see this in the Council of Jerusalem in which Peter spoke first and settle issued.
F
FCEGM
Guest
I’m sure you realize that the issues you raise have been discussed many times previously on this forum, so it might be helpful for you to look for threads that address them - or start new threads for each individual topic. (Welcome to the Forum, btw.
)But, regarding your thoughts on Peter and his supposed fallibility and St. Paul’s remarks in Galatians Peter teaches nothing which is not the true and complete Gospel message. The situation in Antioch had to do with Peter trying to appease the Jewish Christians (much as Paul himself did on several occasions) yet this episode went too far, since it seriously threatened the “oneness” of the Church. That’s why Paul was correct, and Peter had to be set straight – even as numerous Popes had to be corrected in their behavior by Saints throughout the ages. Yet Paul is not questioning St. Peter’s authority here.
What did St. Peter teach that was wrong? The answer is: Nothing. So, you are not addressing his teaching authority, but rather a failure on his part to see the full picture as it applied to his ministry of leadership.
The incident in Galatians is brought up ad nauseum supposedly to “prove” that St. Peter had no special authority. But, then, why does St. Paul boast about it? If St. Peter had no special authority, then there would be no reason for St. Paul to boast, seeing that, in Galatians 2, St. Paul is defending his right to be called an Apostle. Furthermore, you are missing the Jewish pun St. Paul is employing here. Read all of chapters one and two of Galatians. What do you notice here? For starters, St. Paul does something rather strange, he switches between the names “Peter” and “Kephas”. Why? Why use both versions of Peter’s name? The name “Kephas” is clearly the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name “Kepha” (“Rock") – the name which Jesus actually used for St. Peter. However, in Greek “Kephas” means something all on its own. In Greek, “Kephas” means “Head”. And so, when St. Paul boasts of rebuking “Kephas” he is saying how he even stood up to “the Head” (of the Church) for the sake of the Gospel. This meaning would not be lost on Paul’s Greek-speaking audience. Look at the alternation between “Peter” and “Kephas”; whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter’s position of leadership, it’s “Kephas” (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14), yet when he refers to St. Peter’s position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name “Peter” (Gal. 2:7-8). St. Paul’s meaning is strikingly clear.
C
cslink
Guest
I find no discomfort that people have more knowledge of scripture, or have dedicated their life’s to God works more than I have. I find great comfort in the fact that God has blessed people with the ability to preach his word with zeal and have given them the gift to carry His word throughout the world. I have tried to live a Christian life and have tried to work with the gifts God has given. I have come to see many faiths, true and false with my travels in the military. You cannot look in to a person’s heart and see how close to God they are. I find no discomfort that God has given so more to some and less to others when it comes to those gifts to serve God in the ministry and spread His word.You are doing yeoman’s work here, Bel!
Something I often note with non-Catholics such as our new participant is that they have a great discomfort with the thought that anyone could possibly be more advanced spiritually than they. Everyone in their eyes is equally a saint and a sinner, with no one able to be so transformed by grace past a “Jesus and me” moment as to be the true and fully human person he or she was created to be in Christ.
All Christian that have true faith are just as close to God as the next person is. Yes to the human eye, leaders in the church do appear to be closer to God and in that, you are correct, but in God’s eye all have fallen short of his glory and no one though his own deeds can change that. God has blessed some with a more important mission and uses those gifts given to people to carry out His mission, but that does not make them closer, just more blessed.
C
cslink
Guest
I would like to make two observations.
Every time a response is made, I come back with something from scripture and it is responded to as I do not understand or with something written by man. It is never rebutted by scripture
I did not come to this site to convert anyone but to ask and respond to questions to better understand the Catholic faith to help me better understand my faith. If you read all my posting they where honest question and I tried not to be condescending if I disagreed on something, I tried to point out the difference in scripture. I see that with each response to me it comes out that this has been said before, deaf ears; you are a heathen, and any other remark to make you feel you stand on higher ground. God bless you and good-bye.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Calling other people misinformed is an awfully odd way to say that you disagree with their views.
The one thing Luther wanted to do was to be a church unto himself. This was his root error. All the other errors sprung from this one and were minor compared to this one.
He was a Biblical scholar. Before the Wittenburg Plague he was happy in the Church. He was happy even when he visited Rome. He had a relapse of whatever condition he had after the Plague. The very least that was wrong with him was scrupulosity; this is well documented. Most likely he had some variant of PTSD. In any case, he was not well.
Sola Scriptura like all the other solos was a diversionary tactic to cover his rebellion from the Church. 90% of the Church was illiterate. How could they read the Bible? Or do the poor not count in the Protestant denoms?
No. He was aggressively rude and indulged in disproportionate out-of-control rages.
Was Luther burned at stake?
And of course this statement you have just made is not a faulty generalism?
What do you think the people who died as a result of Luther’s self-righteousness feel about living in that particular time and place?
What if we have read his works and our truth differs from your fiction?
Congratulations! You have just said something very Catholic. The Pope is a sinner just like the rest of us.
However, I must say that this is off topic and best presented on a separate thread.
Correct. Except when he is speaking ex cathedra or on behalf of all the bishops in agreement or on behalf of the Magisterium. Why? Because then it is not himself speaking; it is the Holy Spirit speaking through him.
Luther’s church had a caste system: people who could read versus people who could not; rich people versus poor people; secular nationalists versus the faithful, and so on.
I wasn’t aware that the Bible teaches. When did the Bible become a person?
I have read Romans. I have even written papers on Romans. But I’ll make ya a deal. I’ll read Romans again and you read the entire Douay Rheims Challoner Bible and all the Church Fathers, not forgetting Augustine and Aquinas.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Show me in the Bible where it teaches us to deprive ourselves of food (not fast), water; to deprive ourselves of sleep; to bludgeon ourselves senseless; to neglect our duties; to break our promises? To the point of hallucinating or actually seeing the devil? And to the point of succumbing to dissociative rages?
Oh! Are you saying that we can doubt the Bible? If we doubt the Bible, then can we listen to Tradition?
Which people? His nationalist secularist friends? Or the poor? How many of the poor do you think could read? How many of the poor do you think could afford to buy the Bible?
You’ve just said that you don’t know Catholic doctrine. Why then do you presume to wrongfully interpret Catholic doctrine on the infallibility of the Pope? Why don’t you find out what it is first? Any problem with positing a point of view from an informed position?
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
My brother in Christ,
Catholics (Practicing Catholics) acknowledge has authority because Jesus established a Church through Peter and His Apostles. This authority was pass down throughout history to their successors the bishops. Jesus gave authority to His Church. He granted the Apostles to bind and loose, to forgive the sins of others, when Jesus breath on his Apostles.
Am I a heathen? What kind of charity is that? It isn’t Christian at all. I have not accused you of such. Clearly you are in violate of CAF Rules of Conduct: # 7. **Non-Catholics **are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.
You show no Respect at all.
I find your posts regarding Church authority completely distorted and dishonest. Martin Luther was not a great man nor was any of the Reformation Fathers.
Here are some information you want want to look at:
Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon “Kepha” in Aramaic which literally means “rock.” This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because “rock” was not even a name in Jesus’ time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person’s name, He changes their status.
Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 - for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people’s names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul.
2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 - in these verses, God is also called “rock.” Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:
1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are “Kepha” and on this “Kepha” I will build my Church. In Aramaic, “kepha” means a massive stone, and “evna” means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is “petra”, that “Petros” actually means “a small rock”, and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus’ blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used “Kepha,” not “evna.” Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.
Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the “small rock,” he would have used “lithos” which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).
scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html
J
jmcrae
Guest
You say that you want to learn what the Church teaches, but when you are presented with passages from other Church documents besides the Bible (the Bible is also a Catholic Church document, by the way) you complain that it is “man’s teaching.”
Well, the New Testament is also “man’s teaching” - it didn’t fall out of the sky one day. The Word of God is found in the New Testament, but also in other Church documents, as well. The men who wrote the New Testament and the men who wrote the other documents of the Church were all of the same rank in the Church (Apostles and Bishops) - they were all equal in authority with each other.
The New Testament has a special place in the Church because it is the Church’s most important document, and because it alone is inerrant, but it does not stand alone. The context of the New Testament is the Catholic Church, including the other documents of the Church.
When you ask a question like “Why does the Church teach that the Pope is infallible,” you are going to be presented with Church documents that actually discuss that subject in some depth.
We don’t begin by referring you to the New Testament, because it doesn’t discuss Papal infallibility in any detail (although certainly there is evidence of it in many places). The subject of the Scriptures is not the minutiae of how the Church works; the subject of the New Testament is the life, the teachings, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
New Advent:
infallibility
Martin Luther
The Catechism:
infallibility: 889 890 891 2035 2051
Crisis magazine:
Discovering Luther
Redemptor hominis scroll down to 19. The Church as responsible for truth
**
and a page of links
Popes on Luther: a page of links
That should keep you busy for a bit.
infallibility
Martin Luther
The Catechism:
infallibility: 889 890 891 2035 2051
Crisis magazine:
Discovering Luther
Popes on infallibility:
Redemptor hominis scroll down to 19. The Church as responsible for truth
**
and a page of links
Popes on Luther: a page of links
That should keep you busy for a bit.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
How did ‘the Holy Catholic Church’ become ‘the holy Christian Church’? What else did you change? And on what basis?
You have already said this. If you say it often enough perhaps it will become true. How many times are you willing to say it? By the way, let’s cut to the chase. What religion are you hoping to convert us to?
Um… are you sure?
:bigyikes:
Yes! He did have a very good working knowledge of the Bible. So why did he misrepresent it so grievously? Thoughts anyone?
cs? Has anyone said that they think you are holding up Luther as the leader of your Church? Hint: no.
A good Catholic response, cs. Isn’t it amazing how much a person can absorb in less than a day at CAF? Well done!
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
- Many of the claims you have made have not been supported by Scripture.
- Scripture was written by man. The Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church.
- Faith cannot be unreasonable. Truth cannot contradict truth.
- God is not limited by Scripture so why should Catholics be limited by Scripture?
But if we were going to convert, what would we convert to as a result of being persuaded by your point of view?
I gave you enough links to Catholic doctrine re the OP to sink a whale. I don’t see your questions on any of that yet. Mind you, to be fair, it is still early. Yet, even though it is early, you have bid us good-bye. This is very confusing.
cs? Do you not understand that just because you post something does not make it true or at the very least even persuasive? Every time you have posted something which accurately reflects what the Church actually teaches, we have said so.
It is not right to argue against a misrepresentation of what the Church teaches. If you are going to disagree, then disagree. But please disagree with what is actually there and not some off-forum invention. OK?
As for honest questions, we have given you information, yet you have responded only by repeating your own tract. That seems more singleminded than inquiring.
Ah, and when theories brought against the Church are exhausted, then the personal attacks against Her faithful begin.
JP2 warned us that an attack against the Church ultimately turns into an attack against human beings. Normally that means that the person making the personal attack has conceded the discussion.
The higher ground of calling us heathens?
:tiphat: God bless you and have a g’day.
- Status