Are you really Catholic? Let's do the Creeds

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ByzCath said:
Yet today there are people who act “more Catholic than the Pope” because the Church has changed disciplines.

I think my explanation of what that phrase is better than your attempt.

Also, if your attempt was to engage Juliamajor in the discussion then it might have worked better if you quoted her in your post rather than quote a reply of mine. Especially a reply of mine that had nothing to do with that phrase. Hence my confusion in your post.
Click to expand...
I did quote Juliamajor (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6138976#post6138976), you then replied to me, quoting my question to Juliamajor.
 
Bluegoat said:
Well, I don’t think that is true, personally. But yes, I think that a pope denying doctrine (while he is pope) would be a bit of a theological problem, even if it was not done in an “official” capacity.

That being said, I am fuzzy on the background of this and would need someone to point me in the direction of the right documents to back it up.

OK - this is the answer I found in the apologists section, I have no reason to doubt it, though it isn’t detailed, there are a few links on the page.

The question posed is “Can the Pope be a heretic?”
The Holy Spirit protects the Church from a pope definitively promulgating for the universal Church an error in a matter of doctrine or morals; he doesn’t necessarily inspire a pope to hold to right doctrine. For more information, please see the links below.
Click to expand...
From your first quote: “he [the Holy Ghost] doesn’t necessarily inspire a pope to hold to right doctrine.” This is true.

The dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined by the First Vatican Council as being only when a pope declares a dogma to be binding on all christians, that is called declaring something ex cathedra. When a pope is not declaring something ex cathedra, he is not infallible, i.e. he is fallible and can therefore possibly be wrong.

For reference, here’s Vatican I’s definition of Papal Infallibility:

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html
Click to expand...
 
ByzCath said:
There you go, “not a practicing Catholic”. It is the Church who determines its membership…
Click to expand...
I realize that anyone who has been confirmed into the Church can call himself a Catholic but if that is all the term means then it’s not very useful. I guess that’s what lead to the origin of the term CINO (Catholic in name only) used to distinguish between Catholics who practice their faith and those who don’t - which seems to me to be the distinction being made.

It doesn’t seem unfair to me to hold that those who don’t act according to the tenets of the Church are in fact “not practicing Catholics” and it does seem appropriate to distinguish between Catholics who follow the Church’s creeds and those who don’t. While it is God who will ultimately separate the sheep from the goats it is not necessarily beyond our abilities to recognize goat-like behavior.

Ender
 
can someone help me out here.

what exactly did any pope add or take away from the creeds?

i think everyone needs to stop worrying about what the pope does, and starts to worry about how they are to others around them. when its all said and done its not going to matter what creed you say, but how your actions were towards others and if you have faith.

now since i started to be a practicing catholic again, (church every sunday, praying all the time, reading through the bible and ccc) i have been living a better life. following in the footsteps (or trying to atleast) of Jesus Chist, following the traditions of his teachings, through ceremony of the roman catholic church. since i have been things have been better, i have been a better person. life doesnt get easier, but its a better lifestyle.

now, if the pope is mortal head of the church, and because of the roman catholic faith i was introduced to the teachings of Jesus, the Grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit, and through them i have lived better. you cannot sit here and tell me the Pope is a useless figure of the roman catholic church, no matter what they do to a creed (within reason).

so can someone tell me what pope did what to which creed that is causing everyones panties to be in a bunch?
 
AlanF said:
The dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined by the First Vatican Council as being only when a pope declares a dogma to be binding on all christians, that is called declaring something ex cathedra. When a pope is not declaring something ex cathedra, he is not infallible, i.e. he is fallible and can therefore possibly be wrong.
Click to expand...
👍
after reading both vatican 1 and vatican 2’s position of pope infallibility its clear people only read what they want.

for example all people that are against the pope see is “the pope is infallable…” when in reality the whole sentence is (and im being general here) “the pope is infallable when speaking ex cathedra”

its like the people who read the bible, they read one verse and quote it. sometimes they only read the first 4 words of the verse. and they base their whole belief on that 1 verse. yet the rest of the chapter that verse came from is irrelevant to them :ouch:

the problem is this…everyone who isnt roman catholic thinks they are an evangelist when they have no clue what one is. as we all know and evangelist spreads the word of God, evangelists dont interpret the word of God. some say all an evangelist is supposed to do is live their life like Christ. by being filled with faith and acting on grace, thats it…talk is cheap.

keeping the above in mind, these people spreading Gods word are the same people who read half sentences out of the Bible and base their whole belief on it. so they feel they can go against the Pope, the catholic church because they know how the catholic church is.

you have a question about electrical work, you ask an electrician, not a mail man
you have a question about the law, you ask a lawyer, not a chef.
you have a question about catholicism, you ask a catholic.

im no lawyer, so i dont really know the law to the full extent.
im no electrician, so i dont tell people who to wire their house.
even though i am catholic, i never will know everything about it, but the one thing i do know is i know more than probably most protestants and non roman catholics know about roman catholicism. maybe not history, but i do know the way things run…you know why? because i am reading the catachism of the catholic church.

and dont give me that “i grew up catholic” talk either. i grew up catholic to, but i never knew how the church worked. all they do is teach you about how to act with one another.

so keep criticizing the pope. keep saying we are not unified, and keep spreading the lies about pracitices and beliefs we dont have.

catholicism…2000 years plus of faith
yet in what…400 years, maybe 500 years there have been 3000 plus denominations of “reform” (that includes you non denomination beliver).

so before you try to argue with me against what i believe, and against how i show my faith, you need to learn how i show my faith and whats true and what isnt, and the reason why i show my faith the roman catholic way.

i once criticized the pope. that was when i knew nothing. so in order to argue against him i read his beliefs and how he conducts the church. and i agreed with it and came back.

now, just as defensive as i am with my sister and family, i am defensive about the church that gives me light. if someone tries to bring the roman catholic church down, your trying to bring Peter down, who got his orders from Jesus bringing hims down as well. ill bring them down. its just how i am. i love God and his grace so much that if someone tries to bear false witness on the church ill prevent it in one of 2 ways. the first way is try to be nice with them, and explain that im not trying to change your view or convert you but this how we act and show our faith you are mistaken in what you were told…the second way is doing what i used to do which is break someones face open so they cant keep spreading the lies. its hard to talk with no teeth. (but i am working on that with God to change that, its not the right to live life and be, and ive come a long long long way, but still have some to go)

my dad once told me when i was young, right before he repremanded me for doing wrong, he said “dont throw stones if you live in a glass house, and if you have a glass jaw you might want to watch your mouth” (haha i love his marine hoorah way of doing things)

so aside from talking the creeds and showing all a lot of you anti roman catholics know nothing about roman catholicism, how do you live your life? by attacking everyone who doesnt agree with you? by spreading false witness? are you really christian?
i got a ways to go.

and im sorry if i rambled, but its more about the creed. i admitted yeah i follow the creeds but do i always live them…im trying but its hard. now all the other non roman catholics in here that recite the creed/…do you really live it? are you really catholic? (or christian)
 
The following quote is from the incoming archbishop of Milwaukee:

*“While people can call themselves whatever they want, it is my duty as a bishop to state clearly and unequivocally that by professing and disseminating views in grave contradiction to Catholic teaching, members of organizations like ‘Young Catholics for Choice’ in fact disown their Catholic heritage, tragically distancing themselves from that communion with the Church to which they are called.” *

It may in some sense be true that “once a Catholic always a Catholic” but it is surely not true that calling oneself a Catholic has any bearing on whether or not one is in communion with the Church. The debate about whether or not one is “Catholic” is merely semantic. If by their actions people have disowned themselves from the Church it is meaningless to assert that it matters whether or not they call themselves Catholic.

Ender
 
Code:
Ender said:
The following quote is from the incoming archbishop of Milwaukee:

*“While people can call themselves whatever they want, it is my duty as a bishop to state clearly and unequivocally that by professing and disseminating views in grave contradiction to Catholic teaching, members of organizations like ‘Young Catholics for Choice’ in fact disown their Catholic heritage, tragically distancing themselves from that communion with the Church to which they are called.” *

Ender
Click to expand...
i 100% agree with that statement. you cant be a part of something that is not about you, rewrite the rules and call yourself part of that group.

if you dont like the rules go elsewhere. the protestants tried rewriting the rules and now there are 3000 different forms of that.

eventhough you may not agree with a rule of faith, i always reccomend to follow it, or stay as far away from the temptation that rule prohibits because years down the road your gonna say "oh so thats why they said no "
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top