Bad Popes

[NotWorthy]

To everyone struggling with how a “Pure Bride of Christ” like the Catholic Church teaches our institution is, can have bad popes, one simply needs to read the parable of the weeds and the wheat. Christ knew that Satan would sow some tares (weeds) among the wheat (the Church), but these weeds has been prevented form guiding the Barque of Peter down the wrong river.

There was a Pope in the 16th or 17th century (I believe) who had come up with his own Latin translation of the Bible (I can’t remember the guys name, maybe someone else does). Well, his translation was awful, full of down right errors and wrong translations. His cardinals and bishops warned him how bad it was and that he should get assistance from some Church experts. The Pope resisted their efforts and was going to make his translation the Church Bible. On the eve of this pending event, the Pope died, and the Bible translation was dropped by his successors.

Makes one wonder…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Catholics confidently say that although there have been bad or questionable Popes, none of them have ever taught error.

So here’s my question: on what basis would you EVER say that a Pope taught error? What sort of thing would a Pope have to do or say for you to not just revise your understanding of the faith, defer to the authority of Rome, and say that what used to be considered error is now unshakeable truth?

I ask because I know that certain things (like Mary’s ascension, established as infallible dogma by Pius XII in 1950 ) were at earlier stages considered heresies. What it suggests to a non-Catholic believer like myself is that the Catholic view is that it’s a logical and spiritual impossibility for the Pope to teach error in the first place.

Were he to do so, there’d be no mechanism for saying so, responding to it, or even acknowledging that it happened. It would simply become the job of believers to revise their understanding of truth and error to fall in line with the authority of Rome. No?

Welcome to the Catholic Answers Forums!

If you want to learn the truth about what Catholics actually believe, we’re here to help. I can see from this post that we have a lot to talk about.

Mary did not ascend (under her own power); Jesus did. Mary was assumed by God.

This was not considered a heresy in earlier times.

 

[CharlesTT]

Well, I’ll answer that when I see a Pope teach in error…

And that’s the big question here.

What would it take, for a Catholic, to “see a Pope teach in error” when truth itself is defined as what the Pope teaches? As a Catholic, you are not PERMITTED to say that the Pope is teaching or has ever taught in error. The error is ALWAYS yours.

Ask Martin Luther and countless others what happens if you ever allege error on the part of Rome. There is no “outside” or counterweight to the pope’s authority… certainly not on the mere basis of traditions or teachings he puts forth being non or extra-biblical or even in conflict with earlier traditions.

In addition to the gospel (which the Roman Church should be lauded for teaching, although hundreds if not thousands of other churches teach it too), the edifice of the RC has been built out of a huge number of beliefs which exist on the sole basis of successive Popes’ claims to define truth and the acceptance of their followers of that claim.

We don’t have to rehash the Reformation just now to recall what those beliefs and practices are. But I hope you see my point that it is meangingless for a Roman Catholic to say that the Popes have never taught fundamental errors when the system itself does not admit for even the the tiniest possibility of them doing so. If it did, there would be a whole lot besides the gospel message that would need to be reevaluated by Roman Catholics–I wouldn’t even know where to start.

 

[CharlesTT]

Welcome to the Catholic Answers Forums!

If you want to learn the truth about what Catholics actually believe, we’re here to help. I can see from this post that we have a lot to talk about.

Mary did not ascend (under her own power); Jesus did. Mary was assumed by God.

This was not considered a heresy in earlier times.

Thanks for your reply. I’m willing to defer to Catholics when it comes to them defining their own beliefs, and I admit that I may not be 100% correct in my understanding of all the twists and turns in the evolution of your two thousand year old church.

I strongly considered joining the Roman Catholic Church after coming to Christ but ultimately couldn’t after realizing that I’d have to defer to the Pope in matters which strongly conflict with my own readings of scriptures and convictions. If you’re curious, it’s all this stuff about Mary that troubles me the most. I don’t subscribe to the usual sticking point of Sola Scriptura or reject that the Holy Spirit guides the traditions of the church. But Sola Scriptura is not the same thing as Scriptura itself, and I just can’t deal with invocations of papal infallibility that would exclude members from the church for failure to agree (esp that 1950 event) on matters extraneous to the core gospel message.

 

[paul_c]

" charlestt:

What would it take, for a Catholic, to “see a Pope teach in error” when truth itself is defined as what the Pope teaches? As a Catholic, you are not PERMITTED to say that the Pope is teaching or has ever taught in error. The error is ALWAYS yours.

Ask Martin Luther and countless others what happens if you ever allege error on the part of Rome. There is no “outside” or counterweight to the pope’s authority… certainly not on the mere basis of traditions or teachings he puts forth being non or extra-biblical or even in conflict with earlier traditions.

In addition to the gospel (which the Roman Church should be lauded for teaching, although hundreds if not thousands of other churches teach it too), the edifice of the RC has been built out of a huge number of beliefs which exist on the sole basis of successive Popes’ claims to define truth and the acceptance of their followers of that claim.

We don’t have to rehash the Reformation just now to recall what those beliefs and practices are. But I hope you see my point that it is meangingless for a Roman Catholic to say that the Popes have never taught fundamental errors when the system itself does not admit for even the the tiniest possibility of them doing so. If it did, there would be a whole lot besides the gospel message that would need to be reevaluated by Roman Catholics–I wouldn’t even know where to start

Thanks for your reply. I’m willing to defer to Catholics when it comes to them defining their own beliefs, and I admit that I may not be 100% correct in my understanding of all the twists and turns in the evolution of your two thousand year old church.

I strongly considered joining the Roman Catholic Church after coming to Christ but ultimately couldn’t after realizing that I’d have to defer to the Pope in matters which strongly conflict with my own readings of scriptures and convictions. If you’re curious, it’s all this stuff about Mary that troubles me the most. I don’t subscribe to the usual sticking point of Sola Scriptura or reject that the Holy Spirit guides the traditions of the church. But Sola Scriptura is not the same thing as Scriptura itself, and I just can’t deal with invocations of papal infallibility that would exclude members from the church for failure to agree (esp that 1950 event) on matters extraneous to the core gospel message.

Charles,
A Pope’s job is to administer the sacraments and to teach the truths handed down to him from the Apostles, through the Apostolic Succession. They do not create new doctrines but they do apply existing doctrines to changing modern realities. A pope would teach in error if he taught a doctrine that was not apostolic in origin. We beleive this has never happened and that there are a number of safeguards that keep in from occuring. The most important of these safeguards is provided by the Holy Spirit himself. But others include the influence of advisors and councils to help keep things straight. You seem to believe that Popes have created dogma that is in conflict with what was taught by the Apostles. We will collectively challenge you to identify one. We have been through this as a church for 2000 years and no one has proved this.

As for your comments that you had a problem defering to the pope, well it does take some humility to be a Catholic. We recognize that no matter how educated we might be, we still have less insight and information than the collective church. After all, it has had millions of theologians working on understanding the tenets of the faith for 2000 years, including many of the most brilliant minds to have walked the earth. Furthermore, we believe that the Holy Spirit revealed to the apostles all the truths needed for salvation. What value are our individual interpretations in comparison to that?

Finally, I find it difficult to understand how Mary, whose yes to God set in place the incarnation that ultimately led to our Salvation, could be now keeping you from becoming a member of the Church he founded. The Church’s teachings on Mary are not onerous or hard to understand. She was conceived without sin to be the perfect ark to hold our Savior until his birth. She lived a life of devotion to her son and to God and thus is worthy of our respect and admiration, just as the archangel Gabriel did, when he address her, “Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with you.” By noting she was full of Grace, he also told us that she was devoid of sin. At the end of her life she was rewarded for her love and fidelity by being assumed bodily into heaven, a fact made known to us through her empty tomb and through the revelation of the mystics. As with all Saints, she is in communion with believers, living and dead and will intercede for us with her Son if we ask her worthily. At critical junctures in history, she has appeared on Earth to help us understand her son better and to increase faith. This was true At Gudaloupe in the 1500s, leading to the conversion of Mexico. It was true at Lourdes and it was true at Fatima.
What are your specific concerns?

 

[Awake]

What do you consider teaching in error?

Due to the claim of infallibility, I guess anytime the pope teaches something on faith or morals which doesn’t agree with current church teaching.

The problem is, every time somebody brings up such examples, Catholics will always argue “This isn’t actually faith and morals, although it is close”, or “He didn’t declare this an ex-cathedra statement”, or something similar.

That’s why I want to know what would (theoretically) actually qualify for a teaching to be in error.

 

[CharlesTT]

Paul, thanks for your responses and questions. I shall try to respond.

Charles,
A Pope’s job is to administer the sacraments and to teach the truths handed down to him from the Apostles, through the Apostolic Succession.

That’s interesting to me because if the Popes are successors to Peter as claimed, I’d like to hear a lot more justification for the mantle of doctrinal infallibility they inherited from him. Peter, you’ll remember, sank beneath the waves when his faith failed him as he tried to walk on the water like Christ. He struck the High Priest with a sword against Jesus’s wishes. Then he went on to deny Christ three times. Peter, like many of the Popes, may have been an exemplary Christian, but he was extraordinarily fallible, even in his faith. I know that Roman Catholics maintain that the Popes are only infallible when it comes to doctrine but are not immune to sin–fine. So where and when, either before or after the Popes claimed the mantle of Peter, was it ever claimed that Peter was doctrinely infallible?

Too bad that we heard so much from Paul, I guess, since Peter was the one Christ wanted us to defer to in all spiritual matters! Paul sure didn’t seem to share the view of Peter as the final determining authority. I guess he wasted so much time writing about the views of Christ and the necessity of turning to Christ in all things that we never got to learn all we needed to know about Peter! I guess when he said that Christ was to head the church, he meant to say Peter. Has the Vatican ever opined on this matter?

No mortal man, now or ever, has the authority of Christ. Christ himself said that no man comes to the Father except by Him and only one was ever perfect–Christ himself. Not any pope and not Mary. Again, it is very clear that Christ and only Christ was perfect and that salvation comes through Christ alone. Therefore we don’t require the Pope’s opinions about Mary’s perfection or anything else to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The papal decree of 1950 which would deny anyone Communion with Christ’s church because of opinions they may hold about Mary is just one historical example of ( in my opinion and in the opinions of millions who also follow Christ) a very significant and possibly very grave error.

I’ll add that Catholics have hung a very great deal of weight (which perhaps not coincidentally enhances their own earthly authority) on one fairly ambiguous quote about Peter as the rock on which Christ would found his church. On what basis does this extend into all successive generations and force us to accept (in direct opposition to Christ’s teaching that he came to found a spiritual instead of an earthly kingdom with HIMSELF at its head) an earthly prince, swaddled in finery and surrounded with gold who has gone so far in many occasion as to raise conquering armies (in addition to venerating Mary, etc)? I know full well that Catholics have answers to alls these questions–answers predicated, however, on deference to the authority of Rome and the assumption of their church as the one and only true church. I can’t help but notice that for all the weight they give this quote about Peter, they refuse to acknowledge that “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of god” must include Mary. I guess (to borrow from Bill Clinton), it all depends on what your definition of “all” is.

The most important of these safeguards is provided by the Holy Spirit himself.

So is the Holy Spirit a captive of Rome? Can the Holy Spirit not also work in the lives and churches of all who believe in the divine and redemptive Christ? Why must we depart from the biblical teaching of the church as a body with Christ at the head and replace it with teachings of a church with a pope at its head? Why must we believe, for instance, that the Holy Spirit wasn’t working in the life and actions of Martin Luther?

As for your comments that you had a problem defering to the pope, well it does take some humility to be a Catholic. We recognize that no matter how educated we might be, we still have less insight and information than the collective church.

It takes humility to submit to Christ. And again, why is the “collective church” limited only to those who look to Rome instead of including those who look to the redemptive and resurrected Christ outside of the confines of Roman Catholicism? I’m not sure I’d call it “humility” anyway to claim direct authority from Christ and the Apostles for an earthly prince swaddled in gold and finery. I’m sorry if that offends, but the humility of Christ and his Apostles is absolutely unrecognizable to me in the grandiose trappings of Roman Catholicism as it occasionally manifests. Not its missionaries and most of its laymen, mind you, but in its leaders. I do not, mind you, claim any kind of infallibility for other churches. I believe that all of us are fallible, but that all of us collectively form the true church of Christ so long as we believe in the divinity and redemptive mission of Christ.

 

[CharlesTT]

Continuing…

Furthermore, we believe that the Holy Spirit revealed to the apostles all the truths needed for salvation. What value are our individual interpretations in comparison to that?

Anyone who believes that the Holy Spirit revealed to the apostles all the truths needed for salvation should heed the words of the Apostles. I agree with that 100%. I do not recall any instance of an Apostle, however, calling on intercession from Mary in prayer as is a staple of Roman Catholicism. Or insisting as was done in 1950 that we may not be part of Christ’s church and thus share in salvation if we do not believe in the ascension of a sinless, perfect, grace-filled Mary because we think that such a notion contradicts the unique and solitary person and role of Jesus.

Finally, I find it difficult to understand how Mary, whose yes to God set in place the incarnation that ultimately led to our Salvation, could be now keeping you from becoming a member of the Church he founded.

Mary doesn’t keep from me anything. I admire Mary, but that’s it. I have read the Bible and prayed to understand both it and the living Christ’s will for my life and the lives of his followers, and Mary herself does not factor into it at all. She was a willing and humble vessel for the will of her God. While not exactly a bit player in the Gospels, she has no role whatsoever in salvation and the Gospels are very clear about where our focus must lie–on Jesus alone. There is a version of Mary and her role in God’s Kingdom that is put forward by the Roman Catholic church against which both my reason and religion rebels.

Read the Bible. Strive to understand the gospel message. Then attend a Roman Catholic Church. Not all churches take this as far as others, but unless you were born into the Catholic Church (in which case the notion of its absolute authority and primacy is already inculcated in you) or are not especially confident in your conversion experience and/or your own powers of reading comprehension, you may be shocked by the worshipful attitude toward Mary. Something that is quite frankly alien to the main thrust of the Gospels and which is hung on wild extrapolations from a few ambiguous verses–or to put it differently, on absolute deference to the authority of Rome.

Catholics usually insist that they don’t pray to Mary. This is, I believe, a game of semantics. I also believe it is false. Speaking to some dead person as a friend speaks to a friend may be one thing. Perhaps they can hear–who knows? Not a point I think that anybody needs to get hung upon it. I sometimes speak to my father who recently passed but I certainly don’t ask him for favors. I find it a comfort to do so, but it it is not done in an attitude of worship.

The distinction is or ought to be obvious. If you ask intercession or favor from spiritual entities which do not exist in physical form, then that is by definition PRAYER. Denying such an obvious point amazes me. Why is it even necessary to deny it? What would NOT denying it be confessing to?

Please ask yourself that question in an attitude of humility and prayer.

 

[jam070406]

Continuing…

Anyone who believes that the Holy Spirit revealed to the apostles all the truths needed for salvation should heed the words of the Apostles. I agree with that 100%. I do not recall any instance of an Apostle, however, calling on intercession from Mary in prayer as is a staple of Roman Catholicism. Or insisting as was done in 1950 that we may not be part of Christ’s church and thus share in salvation if we do not believe in the ascension of a sinless, perfect, grace-filled Mary because we think that such a notion contradicts the unique and solitary person and role of Jesus.

Mary doesn’t keep from me anything. I admire Mary, but that’s it. I have read the Bible and prayed to understand both it and the living Christ’s will for my life and the lives of his followers, and Mary herself does not factor into it at all. She was a willing and humble vessel for the will of her God. While not exactly a bit player in the Gospels, she has no role whatsoever in salvation and the Gospels are very clear about where our focus must lie–on Jesus alone. There is a version of Mary and her role in God’s Kingdom that is put forward by the Roman Catholic church against which both my reason and religion rebels.

Read the Bible. Strive to understand the gospel message. Then attend a Roman Catholic Church. Not all churches take this as far as others, but unless you were born into the Catholic Church (in which case the notion of its absolute authority and primacy is already inculcated in you) or are not especially confident in your conversion experience and/or your own powers of reading comprehension, you may be shocked by the worshipful attitude toward Mary. Something that is quite frankly alien to the main thrust of the Gospels and which is hung on wild extrapolations from a few ambiguous verses–or to put it differently, on absolute deference to the authority of Rome.

Catholics usually insist that they don’t pray to Mary. This is, I believe, a game of semantics. I also believe it is false. Speaking to some dead person as a friend speaks to a friend may be one thing. Perhaps they can hear–who knows? Not a point I think that anybody needs to get hung upon it. I sometimes speak to my father who recently passed but I certainly don’t ask him for favors. I find it a comfort to do so, but it it is not done in an attitude of worship.

The distinction is or ought to be obvious. If you ask intercession or favor from spiritual entities which do not exist in physical form, then that is by definition PRAYER. Denying such an obvious point amazes me. Why is it even necessary to deny it? What would NOT denying it be confessing to?

Please ask yourself that question in an attitude of humility and prayer.

It’s sad that you see Mary as some sort of threat to worship of Jesus. Jesus honored His Mother. Catholics give honor to her, as Jesus did. How could we possibly honor her more then Jesus? I don’t understand the fear of loving Mary?? Will God be mad or offended because we love the woman HE chose to give birth to the Word incarnate and who said yes to God’s plan of salvation? Have you ever stopped to contemplate the pain and suffering Mary also went through? You refer to her as a mere vessel. She gave birth to Jesus!! She had to endure to watch the pain and suffering that He went through. She stood by and in tremendous pain watched Him die on the cross as the Apostles abandoned Him. She was there at the foot of the cross. But she never expressed bitterness towards them or cursed those killing Him. She humbly followed God’s will.
Could you please stop and think about what that would be like. And you just dimiss her as some vessel, “no big player”
You are truly misguided and I pray God opens your eyes.
No offense Charles, but Catholics get tired of Protestants that come on these boards and try to tell Catholics what they believe. We do not worship Mary. No where does the Church teach such a thing. You are flat out wrong and should humble yourself and admit that.
I think YOU need to do some reflection, and prayer in humility.

 

[paul_c]

Paul, thanks for your responses and questions. I shall try to respond.

That’s interesting to me because if the Popes are successors to Peter as claimed, I’d like to hear a lot more justification for the mantle of doctrinal infallibility they inherited from him. Peter, you’ll remember, sank beneath the waves when his faith failed him as he tried to walk on the water like Christ. He struck the High Priest with a sword against Jesus’s wishes. Then he went on to deny Christ three times. Peter, like many of the Popes, may have been an exemplary Christian, but he was extraordinarily fallible, even in his faith. I know that Roman Catholics maintain that the Popes are only infallible when it comes to doctrine but are not immune to sin–fine. So where and when, either before or after the Popes claimed the mantle of Peter, was it ever claimed that Peter was doctrinely infallible?

This is an example of only seeing half the story. Sure, Peter’s faith failed him when he walked on water, but he was the only one brave enough to attempt it. Yes, Jesus told him to put away his sword, but remember, Peter was the only one brave enough to try to Defend Jesus at the Garden of Gethsemane. And yes he denied Jesus three times but he was the only one of the Apostles to stay with Jesus as he was tried, the others had scattered. The fact is, Popes are men and all men have shortcomings. However, we believe that they are doctrinally protected by the Holy Spirit, who has a vested interest in keeping the Deposit of Faith intact. Jesus said he would be with his church to the end of the world and that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church to all truth. We believe what Jesus said.

Too bad that we heard so much from Paul, I guess, since Peter was the one Christ wanted us to defer to in all spiritual matters! Paul sure didn’t seem to share the view of Peter as the final determining authority. I guess he wasted so much time writing about the views of Christ and the necessity of turning to Christ in all things that we never got to learn all we needed to know about Peter! I guess when he said that Christ was to head the church, he meant to say Peter. Has the Vatican ever opined on this matter?

Don’t forget that at the beginning of his ministry (35AD) , Paul spend 15 days with Peter to make sure he was doctrinally correct. (Galatians 1:18). And as he says in Galatians 2:2 that 14 years later he went back to Jerusalem (the Council of Jerusalem in 49AD) " to make sure he was not running in vain". And don’t forget that the first half of Acts follows the career of Peter, where he took the leadership role in replacing Judas, representing the Apostles at Pentecost, healing the man born lame and preaching the gospel to the people and then the Jewish leaders, running the community and then taking the decisive position at the Council of Jerusalem. Peter also wrote epistles and to a wider audience, than Paul’s which were to individuals or communities that he previously visited. Christ is the head of the Church but when he ascended to heaven, he left Peter in Charge, giving him the kingdom of Heaven and asking him to tend his sheep.

No mortal man, now or ever, has the authority of Christ. Christ himself said that no man comes to the Father except by Him and only one was ever perfect–Christ himself. Not any pope and not Mary. Again, it is very clear that Christ and only Christ was perfect and that salvation comes through Christ alone. Therefore we don’t require the Pope’s opinions about Mary’s perfection or anything else to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The papal decree of 1950 which would deny anyone Communion with Christ’s church because of opinions they may hold about Mary is just one historical example of ( in my opinion and in the opinions of millions who also follow Christ) a very significant and possibly very grave error.

Obviously no man has the authority of God and Jesus is part of the Trinity. However, if you have read Matthew, you know that he gave Peter and his successors the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever they bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven. Salvation does come through Christ alone. The Church exists to help people find their way to Christ. You might think you can find your own way to Christ, but why would you turn away help? By the way, what Papal decree of 1950 are you talking about? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Please give us documentation.

I’ll add that Catholics have hung a very great deal of weight (which perhaps not coincidentally enhances their own earthly authority) on one fairly ambiguous quote about Peter as the rock on which Christ would found his church. On what basis does this extend into all successive generations and force us to accept (in direct opposition to Christ’s teaching that he came to found a spiritual instead of an earthly kingdom with HIMSELF at its head) an earthly prince, swaddled in finery and surrounded with gold who has gone so far in many occasion as to raise conquering armies (in addition to venerating Mary, etc)? I know full well that Catholics have answers to alls these questions–answers predicated, however, on deference to the authority of Rome and the assumption of their church as the one and only true church. I can’t help but notice that for all the weight they give this quote about Peter, they refuse to acknowledge that “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of god” must include Mary. I guess (to borrow from Bill Clinton), it all depends on what your definition of “all” is.

The problem here is that you misunderstand the role of scripture. The church existed before the New Testament. The New testament is simply a teaching tool put together by the Church to help people find the truth. The Canon wasn’t even completed until 382AD. And yes, we believe it is inspired as do you. But its not the only source of information available to the Church. There is far more to the Deposit of Faith than simply scripture. None of it contradicts scripture but at the same time, scripture doesn’t encompass all truth. The leadership role of the Pope and the Bishops comes from Tradition and is discussed in Scripture only modestly. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

As for Mary being without sin, that is attested in Scripture but the Archangel Gabriel, who refered to her as Full of Grace. You can’t be Full of Grace if you are sinful…

 

[paul_c]

So is the Holy Spirit a captive of Rome? Can the Holy Spirit not also work in the lives and churches of all who believe in the divine and redemptive Christ? Why must we depart from the biblical teaching of the church as a body with Christ at the head and replace it with teachings of a church with a pope at its head? Why must we believe, for instance, that the Holy Spirit wasn’t working in the life and actions of Martin Luther?

The Catholic Church is the instrument that Jesus chose to use to impart his teaching. It is the Body of Christ. Those other Churches that believe in the divine and redemptive Christ all left the Body of Christ of their own free will to follow Christ in a way of their own making. There is only one truth and Jesus set up the Catholic Church to teach it. To the extend that other churches agree with the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, they teach the truth. When they deviate, they deviate from the Truth.

The Catholic Church was given the keys to heaven by Jesus through Peter and he passed it on to his successors. Jesus promised to be with and to Guide the Church for all time through the Holy Spirit. Those are the credentials of the Catholic Church. For 1500 years, it was the only Christian Church. What credentials did Martin Luther have, other than his own opinion? What credentials does your church founders have that would make us believe he is right?

When people shop around for Protestant churches, they look for ones that agree with their own beliefs. When people convert to the Catholic Church, it is because they seek the truth.

It takes humility to submit to Christ. And again, why is the “collective church” limited only to those who look to Rome instead of including those who look to the redemptive and resurrected Christ outside of the confines of Roman Catholicism? I’m not sure I’d call it “humility” anyway to claim direct authority from Christ and the Apostles for an earthly prince swaddled in gold and finery. I’m sorry if that offends, but the humility of Christ and his Apostles is absolutely unrecognizable to me in the grandiose trappings of Roman Catholicism as it occasionally manifests. Not its missionaries and most of its laymen, mind you, but in its leaders. I do not, mind you, claim any kind of infallibility for other churches. I believe that all of us are fallible, but that all of us collectively form the true church of Christ so long as we believe in the divinity and redemptive mission of Christ.

We claim direct authority from Christ and the Apostles, not to brag but because it is the truth. You can follow Church doctrine through the Early Church Fathers right back to the Apostles. You are sensitive to the Finery of the Papacy but do you realize that when Pope John Paul died, all his personal assets fit into a small box and consisted mainly of pictures. A Popes life is not his own, he is the servant of a Billion plus people. Sure there are beautiful churches that Glorify God that have been built by the Church to help people understand the majesty of God through the free will gifts of its people. You know that there are no tithing requirements in the Catholic Church, right?

How can you claim to be part of the true church of God when you teach error? What errors you ask? Well, you tell us where you disagree with the Catholic Church and you will have your answer. There can not be true Truths. Truth is absolute not relative. And do you really submit to Christ, or only to what you want Christ to say.

 

[paul_c]

Continuing…

Anyone who believes that the Holy Spirit revealed to the apostles all the truths needed for salvation should heed the words of the Apostles. I agree with that 100%. I do not recall any instance of an Apostle, however, calling on intercession from Mary in prayer as is a staple of Roman Catholicism. Or insisting as was done in 1950 that we may not be part of Christ’s church and thus share in salvation if we do not believe in the ascension of a sinless, perfect, grace-filled Mary because we think that such a notion contradicts the unique and solitary person and role of Jesus.

The Apostles didn’t call on the intercession from Mary in prayer because she lived among them. They simply went over to her and asked her to pray for them. Do you doubt that this happened? That’s what we do today as well, Ask Mary to Pray for them. We do not pray to Mary.

As for the Papal Bull declaring the Assumption of Mary as Dogma in 1950 (I finally figured out what you are talking about), it is different from the Ascension of Jesus. Jesus did it under his own power. Mary is assumed into heaven. She’s not the first one either. Both Elija and Enoch were assumed bodily into heaven in the Old Testament. It in no way reduces or compromises the role of Jesus.

Mary doesn’t keep from me anything. I admire Mary, but that’s it. I have read the Bible and prayed to understand both it and the living Christ’s will for my life and the lives of his followers, and Mary herself does not factor into it at all. She was a willing and humble vessel for the will of her God. While not exactly a bit player in the Gospels, she has no role whatsoever in salvation and the Gospels are very clear about where our focus must lie–on Jesus alone. There is a version of Mary and her role in God’s Kingdom that is put forward by the Roman Catholic church against which both my reason and religion rebels.

You completely misunderstand the role of Mary in the Catholic Church. She is not considered divine. She was venerated by an Angel (Hail Mary, Full of Grace, the Lord is with you ) and is venerated by us as well.

Here is how salvation is manifested in the Catholic Church. We recieve sufficient grace to be saved when we are Baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit. This sacrament cleanses us of all past sin and is a sign of our faith in Jesus. This sacrament was made possible by Jesus sacrifice and is a free gift to us.

After we are baptized, we are responsible to stay in the state of Grace. We do this by following Jesus’s example to love God with all our heart, all our mind and all our Souls and to love our Neighbor as ourselves. Our entire lives are meant to be sanctifying after baptism and we are helped in this through the real presence in the Eucharist. If we fall from Grace through sin, God, in his mercy has provided a way back through the sacrament of Reconciliation, where we confess our sins contritely, agree to repent and do an appropriate penance to make up for our sins. If we die in the state of Grace, we will go to heaven.

You will notice that there is no discussion of Mary in this. This does not mean, however, that Mary can not help us. She, like all the Saints, can pray for our salvation, and we believe that her prayers for us are particularly effective. She is also the best example of Christ disciples, having never sinned and having Loved Jesus for his entire life. What about this rebels against your reason or religion?

Read the Bible. Strive to understand the gospel message. Then attend a Roman Catholic Church. Not all churches take this as far as others, but unless you were born into the Catholic Church (in which case the notion of its absolute authority and primacy is already inculcated in you) or are not especially confident in your conversion experience and/or your own powers of reading comprehension, you may be shocked by the worshipful attitude toward Mary. Something that is quite frankly alien to the main thrust of the Gospels and which is hung on wild extrapolations from a few ambiguous verses–or to put it differently, on absolute deference to the authority of Rome.

We are absolutely deferential to the authority of Rome, just as we would be absolutely deferential to the athority of Jesus. Can you say the same? Afterall, Jesus gave his authority to Peter and the Church, but you choose to ignor that.

Catholics usually insist that they don’t pray to Mary. This is, I believe, a game of semantics. I also believe it is false. Speaking to some dead person as a friend speaks to a friend may be one thing. Perhaps they can hear–who knows? Not a point I think that anybody needs to get hung upon it. I sometimes speak to my father who recently passed but I certainly don’t ask him for favors. I find it a comfort to do so, but it it is not done in an attitude of worship.

The distinction is or ought to be obvious. If you ask intercession or favor from spiritual entities which do not exist in physical form, then that is by definition PRAYER. Denying such an obvious point amazes me. Why is it even necessary to deny it? What would NOT denying it be confessing to?

Please ask yourself that question in an attitude of humility and prayer.

Call it semantics if you want but there is a distinction between asking the Saints (including Mary) to intercede for us and in praying to God. Prayer is by definition, communicating with God. Mary is not God, therefore we are not praying to her.

We believe in the Communion of Saints. If your denomination recognizes the Apostle’s creed, then you do as well. We believe that all members of the Church, dead and alive, can help each other through prayer. We pray for the dead, they pray for us. We are all linked together as the Body of Christ for the attainment of God’s will.

I hope this helped clarify your questions and misconceptions. Please keep asking. It is our role here to help you find the truth for yourself . Let the Spirit lead you there.

 

[Timmy_Z]

Well, I’ll answer that when I see a Pope teach in error.

“Pope #1” (Peter) taught in error about the faith, and was corrected by Paul.

Galatians 2:14But when I saw that they were not really obeying the truth that is in the good news, I corrected Peter in front of everyone and said:
Peter, you are a Jew, but you live like a Gentile. So how can you force Gentiles to live like Jews?

Peter was teaching wrong “faith and morals” (that Gentiles had to live as Jews) and was corrected.

-Tim

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks for your reply. I’m willing to defer to Catholics when it comes to them defining their own beliefs, and I admit that I may not be 100% correct in my understanding of all the twists and turns in the evolution of your two thousand year old church.

I strongly considered joining the Roman Catholic Church after coming to Christ but ultimately couldn’t after realizing that I’d have to defer to the Pope in matters which strongly conflict with my own readings of scriptures and convictions. If you’re curious, it’s all this stuff about Mary that troubles me the most. I don’t subscribe to the usual sticking point of Sola Scriptura or reject that the Holy Spirit guides the traditions of the church. But Sola Scriptura is not the same thing as Scriptura itself, and I just can’t deal with invocations of papal infallibility that would exclude members from the church for failure to agree (esp that 1950 event) on matters extraneous to the core gospel message.

Charles-

Thanks for the background info…this is quite encouraging.

Perhaps if we work through the Marian dogmas one at a time, you will appreciate them more.

There are four:

1. Mother of God
2. Perpetual Virginity
3. Assumption
4. Immaculate Conception

Then, there are two or three lesser doctrines which have not been defined formally as dogma:

Queen of Heaven
Co-Redemptrix
Co-Mediatrix

I recommend we work on the big four first, and then work on the other three later.

Would you like to begin a new thread on one of the four? I’ll keep an eye out for it…see you there.

 

[paul_c]

“Pope #1” (Peter) taught in error about the faith, and was corrected by Paul.

Galatians 2:14But when I saw that they were not really obeying the truth that is in the good news, I corrected Peter in front of everyone and said:
Peter, you are a Jew, but you live like a Gentile. So how can you force Gentiles to live like Jews?

Peter was teaching wrong “faith and morals” (that Gentiles had to live as Jews) and was corrected.

-Tim

Tim,
Peter did not teach error about the Faith. As Paul notes, when the Jewish Christians came, he ate Kosher to not offend the Jewish Christians. This is hardly an error about the Faith or morals. In fact, for all Paul’s bluster about it in Galations, Paul had Timothy circumcised so as not to offend the Jews and when Paul went back to the Temple prior to being shipped off to Rome to stand trial, he also was following the Jewish customs by getting his head shaved in repetence.

 

[NotWorthy]

And that’s the big question here.

What would it take, for a Catholic, to “see a Pope teach in error” when truth itself is defined as what the Pope teaches? As a Catholic, you are not PERMITTED to say that the Pope is teaching or has ever taught in error. The error is ALWAYS yours.

Ask Martin Luther and countless others what happens if you ever allege error on the part of Rome. There is no “outside” or counterweight to the pope’s authority… certainly not on the mere basis of traditions or teachings he puts forth being non or extra-biblical or even in conflict with earlier traditions.

In addition to the gospel (which the Roman Church should be lauded for teaching, although hundreds if not thousands of other churches teach it too), **the edifice of the RC has been built out of a huge number of beliefs which exist on the sole basis of successive Popes’ claims to define truth and the acceptance of their followers of that claim.
**

The sole basis of successive popes? Maybe its based on the sole basis of Christ’s words?

We don’t have to rehash the Reformation just now to recall what those beliefs and practices are. But I hope you see my point that it is meangingless for a Roman Catholic to say that the Popes have never taught fundamental errors when the system itself does not admit for even the the tiniest possibility of them doing so. If it did, there would be a whole lot besides the gospel message that would need to be reevaluated by Roman Catholics–I wouldn’t even know where to start.

Were you the one who brought up Mary’s Ascension? Why don’t we zero in on that. It’s much better than the shot-gun approach.

 

[NotWorthy]

…But Sola Scriptura is not the same thing as Scriptura itself, and I just can’t deal with invocations of papal infallibility that would exclude members from the church for failure to agree (esp that 1950 event) on matters extraneous to the core gospel message.

Who among the Church Faithful were against the “1950 event”? Do you feel that the Church invented that doctrine in the 1950’s?

 

[NotWorthy]

Due to the claim of infallibility, I guess anytime the pope teaches something on faith or morals which doesn’t agree with current church teaching.

A statement such as this should be followed up with an example. It doesn’t have to be dozens, but maybe just one.

I’m thinking of contraception, as a counter-proposal. 100 years ago, every single Christian Faith was adamantly opposed to Contraception. Sadly, in the 1930’s this began to change, as the people in the congregations put pressure on their Church leaders to change their stance on Contraception. The Catholic Church, today, remains one of the only Church’s that still oppose Contraception, despite the fact that this had led numerous Catholics to disagree, even to the point of leaving the Church. The Church has refused to let the Faithful determine morals, simply to appease their collective consciences.

The problem is, every time somebody brings up such examples, Catholics will always argue “This isn’t actually faith and morals, although it is close”, or “He didn’t declare this an ex-cathedra statement”, or something similar.

That’s why I want to know what would (theoretically) actually qualify for a teaching to be in error.

I don’t know. I’ll try and think about that.

 

[NotWorthy]

That’s interesting to me because if the Popes are successors to Peter as claimed, I’d like to hear a lot more justification for the mantle of doctrinal infallibility they inherited from him. Peter, you’ll remember, sank beneath the waves when his faith failed him as he tried to walk on the water like Christ. He struck the High Priest with a sword against Jesus’s wishes. Then he went on to deny Christ three times. Peter, like many of the Popes, may have been an exemplary Christian, but he was extraordinarily fallible, even in his faith. I know that Roman Catholics maintain that the Popes are only infallible when it comes to doctrine but are not immune to sin–fine. So where and when, either before or after the Popes claimed the mantle of Peter, was it ever claimed that Peter was doctrinely infallible?

Peter failed Christ numerous times, prior to the Resurrection. But afterwards, he taught and led the Church through Her earliest and (in many ways) most trying times. It’s comforting to know that Jesus saw in Peter the man he would become.

Too bad that we heard so much from Paul, I guess, since Peter was the one Christ wanted us to defer to in all spiritual matters! Paul sure didn’t seem to share the view of Peter as the final determining authority. I guess he wasted so much time writing about the views of Christ and the necessity of turning to Christ in all things that we never got to learn all we needed to know about Peter! I guess when he said that Christ was to head the church, he meant to say Peter. Has the Vatican ever opined on this matter?

Paul did what Paul was sent to do - Preach the Gospel - and he did it so well. Who did Paul go to in order to verify his Gospel Message? Peter! No, actually Cephas, for Paul saw that Peter was indeed “The Rock” that Christ invisioned.

Peter, however, led the Church. Peter it was who determined that there needed to be a successor to Judas. Peter preached the first instructions of the New Church to the Jews at Pentecost. Peter was the first to include the Gentiles into the Church.

What major decisions on Church doctrine did Paul introduce?

No mortal man, now or ever, has the authority of Christ. Christ himself said that no man comes to the Father except by Him and only one was ever perfect–Christ himself.

And yet, Christ said to take matters to the Church!

Not any pope and not Mary. Again, it is very clear that Christ and only Christ was perfect and that salvation comes through Christ alone. Therefore we don’t require the Pope’s opinions about Mary’s perfection or anything else to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The papal decree of 1950 which would deny anyone Communion with Christ’s church because of opinions they may hold about Mary is just one historical example of ( in my opinion and in the opinions of millions who also follow Christ) a very significant and possibly very grave error.

To deny Mary’s Assumption, something the Church has taught throughout the ages, is to deny the Church Authority. This is something that is obviously troubling you.

Did Christ leave behind a Church? If yes, you follow that Church and trust that Christ lives up to His Promises that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church to All Truths.

If no, then you can wallow in whatever Church turns you on, often being drawn simply because of a charismatic leader.

I’ll add that Catholics have hung a very great deal of weight (which perhaps not coincidentally enhances their own earthly authority) on one fairly ambiguous quote about Peter as the rock on which Christ would found his church.

To Christians that hang a great deal on Ephesians 2:8-9 or Romans 3:23, or 2nd Timoth 3:16, you should be surprise at this.

Charles, methinks you have quite a few axes to grind against the Church, the Bride of Christ!

 

[NotWorthy]

Read the Bible. Strive to understand the gospel message. Then attend a Roman Catholic Church. Not all churches take this as far as others, but unless you were born into the Catholic Church (in which case the notion of its absolute authority and primacy is already inculcated in you) or are not especially confident in your conversion experience and/or your own powers of reading comprehension, you may be shocked by the worshipful attitude toward Mary. Something that is quite frankly alien to the main thrust of the Gospels and which is hung on wild extrapolations from a few ambiguous verses–or to put it differently, on absolute deference to the authority of Rome.

Catholics usually insist that they don’t pray to Mary. This is, I believe, a game of semantics. I also believe it is false. Speaking to some dead person as a friend speaks to a friend may be one thing. Perhaps they can hear–who knows? Not a point I think that anybody needs to get hung upon it. I sometimes speak to my father who recently passed but I certainly don’t ask him for favors. I find it a comfort to do so, but it it is not done in an attitude of worship.

The distinction is or ought to be obvious. If you ask intercession or favor from spiritual entities which do not exist in physical form, then that is by definition PRAYER. Denying such an obvious point amazes me. Why is it even necessary to deny it? What would NOT denying it be confessing to?

Please ask yourself that question in an attitude of humility and prayer.

You know, one thing I really dislike about rhetoric like this, no matter how well intentioned, is that it ignores the fruits of the labor of those who pray with Mary.

I attend a lot of Churches in my area. I’m outside sales, and I try to attend daily Mass. With my schedule, I’ll end up finding a Mass in the area that fits my schedule. So, I’ve become familiar with people from 10 or so different parishes throughout the Beaumont area. I can tell you, the holiest most devout people in every parish, almost to a “tee”, pray the rosary daily. The hardest workers in the parishes, almost to a “tee”, pray the rosary daily. And the most humble, selfless people I see in these churches, almost to a “tee”, pray the rosary daily.

Furthermore, in speaking to these people who attend daily mass, nearly all of them began to pray the rosary first, and then gradually evolved into attending daily Mass whenever necessary.

So, one can say that focusing on Mary diverts our focus from Jesus. I’d tell you that focusing on Mary intensifies the average Catholics focus on Mary.

“My Soul magnifies the Lord, and my Spirit rejoices in God my Savior”!