A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Maybe those ‘switching’ know something you don’t.
- Status
M
Markie_Boy
Guest
OK - no issue on the Holy Father issue any longer - but the above I can’t OK yet.
F
fnr
Guest
I’ll just point out Paul’s numerous references to “the holy ones” in his letters.
I won’t try to argue from a doctrinary perspective, because theology is not totally constrained by historical facts, and history cannot provide evidence of theological truths. To be honest, the rise of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is minimally attested prior to about 250 AD. The First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, written in the late 1st century, does seem to be evidence of an authoritative letter from the Bishop of Rome to Christians in another city that caused the recipients to obey his instructions. However, we also have authors like Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century) whose letters also carry a very authoritative tone when addressed to other churches.
To me, however, the very best historical evidence for Petrine primacy, which is admittedly short of infallibility is the canon of the New Testament. Peter is generally featured as the foremost apostle in all the Gospels. The 7 uncontested letters of Paul also feature Peter in a leadership role within the earliest Christians. Lastly, the existence of pseudepigrapha written in Peter’s name (1 and 2 Peter) suggest that his name bore enormous weight with Christians in the period between the late first to early second centuries, when these letters were likely composed.
That’s not a “slam dunk,” I know, but I think it’s a set of facts that any serious critical Bible scholar would agree with. Again, it doesn’t give you infallibility, which is a theological concept. What I’ve tried to give you is historical evidence for Peter’s leadership in the early church.
S
steve_b
Guest
Ignorance can be innocent or culpable.
We are ALL ignorant innocently, of way more than we know. However, as the Catechism states ignorance is not always innocent. 1791
If ignorance is truly innocent, then it reduces one’s culpability. One can’t feign ignorance. They never fool God.
S
steve_b
Guest
J
Jeanne1184
Guest
M
Markie_Boy
Guest
Thank you fnr, that was very good.
I do truly appreciate your time and effort.
I do truly appreciate your time and effort.
T
TRH1292
Guest
I’m sorry, but that is just now how the Church works. The Catholic Church is not a democracy, it is a reveled religion. The Church obliges all its members to receive the teaching of the Gospel. All Catholics are required to believe whatever the Church proposes for belief. No such thing as picking and choosing is ever recognized.
It is a very serious matter because when a baptized Catholic obstinately refuses to believe in a truth of the faith, then that is the sin of heresy, which can be punished through automatic excommunication.
R
rfournier103
Guest
I was wondering, Mark; have you thought of bringing your issues with infallibility to a professional? And by professional I mean your local parish priest and/or one of the professional apologists here at Catholic Answers? It is their JOB to answer your questions… especially about sticky issues.
Personally, I’ve never had serious apologetics issues; but I know that if a priest or apologist can’t answer your question, he’ll know someone who can.
P
Prayer_Warrior
Guest
I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but I’ve never understood how one can believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures but believe it is impossible for the Pope to be infallible. It is the SAME Holy Spirit who inspired the writers of Scripture to be infallible in the writing of that Scripture who guides the pope in his charism of infallibility. St. Paul, St. Peter, St. John, St. Matthew, and all the writers of Scripture were all sinners “who fell short of the glory of God”. In fact, St. Paul wrote those very words while he was a sinner. Why are those words from the letter to the Romans trustworthy?? He was just a man when he wrote those words. Why does a Christian trust Scripture to be true? It’s not like God dropped a leather-bound Bible from the sky. ANSWER: It is because we believe that the Holy Spirit inspired these writers to write God’s word. So why can’t the same Holy Spirit guide the Church which Jesus Christ Himself founded? Indeed, the Holy Spirit was promised to the Apostles to guide them to “all truth” and remind them of what Jesus had said.
Personally, I find it more than ironic when someone uses letters written by our Church and for our Church to try to disprove our Church. At any rate, the answer is that there is only one Holy Spirit and if He has the power to guide the writers of Scripture, He has the power to guide the Church (not to mention the fact in 1 Tim 3:15, Scripture itself affirms that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth– how could that be true if she were not being guided by the Holy Spirit?).
Personally, I find it more than ironic when someone uses letters written by our Church and for our Church to try to disprove our Church. At any rate, the answer is that there is only one Holy Spirit and if He has the power to guide the writers of Scripture, He has the power to guide the Church (not to mention the fact in 1 Tim 3:15, Scripture itself affirms that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth– how could that be true if she were not being guided by the Holy Spirit?).
G
Gorgias
Guest
OK… you’re asking two distinct and quite different questions here, so let’s take them one at a time…
"Markie Boy:
The second and third cases, however, are different in an important way: in these cases, we have people who are (presumably) well-catechized, who participate in the sacramental life of the Church, and who should know that the fullness of the truth resides in the Catholic Church. For them, then, the abandonment of the Church in favor of a denomination which – while it may be Christian, and spirit-filled – would objectively not have the fullness of the truth in the way that the Catholic Church does. For these people, then, the possibility of their salvation is at a serious crossroads with dire consequences. The Church does, in fact, teach this: in Lumen Gentium, paragraph 14, the Council Fathers, in the section on “the Catholic faithful,” wrote, “whosoever, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary to Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”
So, it’s not just whether a person is Catholic vs Protestant – it’s the particular situation that’s important to consider!
Eventually, Boniface wrote Unam Sanctam, which had one and only one goal: asserting that the power of the pope was of a higher order than that of any king. The final sentence of that bull, which you quote, is striking: it does appear to attempt to state, in terms that (these days) would be considered an exercise of magisterial teaching (and therefore, a teaching that is infallible), an irrefutable doctrine. Yet, what does it mean? The traditional reading of that sentence is that one must be “in the communion with the Catholic Church in order to be saved” (cf Sullivan 1992, p. 65). However, if we take that sentence in the context of the entire Bull, then we see a slightly different reading: the idea of “every human creature” isn’t making a statement that distinguishes between Catholics and non-Catholics, but rather, one that asserts that every human creature, even kings, must submit to the authority of the pope.
So, in this case, I would say that Boniface is making a claim that isn’t refuted by later doctrinal statements: although it addresses both submission to papal authority and salvation, it’s clearly an assertion about submission to papal authority.
"Markie Boy:
Let’s take a person who is Baptist or Lutheran and ask the question about the possibility of their salvation – it’s not just one case, but in fact, distinctly different cases…
- A person whose family has been Lutheran for generations, and who was a Lutheran all his life
- A person who was baptized in the Catholic Church but later left the Church and decided to become a Baptist
- Luther and those who followed him in his time – who were Catholic, but left the Church and began a new denomination
The second and third cases, however, are different in an important way: in these cases, we have people who are (presumably) well-catechized, who participate in the sacramental life of the Church, and who should know that the fullness of the truth resides in the Catholic Church. For them, then, the abandonment of the Church in favor of a denomination which – while it may be Christian, and spirit-filled – would objectively not have the fullness of the truth in the way that the Catholic Church does. For these people, then, the possibility of their salvation is at a serious crossroads with dire consequences. The Church does, in fact, teach this: in Lumen Gentium, paragraph 14, the Council Fathers, in the section on “the Catholic faithful,” wrote, “whosoever, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary to Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”
So, it’s not just whether a person is Catholic vs Protestant – it’s the particular situation that’s important to consider!
Rev Francis Sullivan, in his book, discusses the context of this papal bull. It’s important to remember that Church documents are written in a particular historical context, and always address that context; if we try to remove them from that context, we run the risk of misunderstanding what they’re attempting to say. In this particular context, there was the issue of supremacy of leadership: the pope and the king of France (Philip IV) were arguing over who was the higher authority. The conflict between the two had been going on for a while, and had exploded in a number of different skirmishes. In 1301, Philip went after a bishop on false charges, and had him tried and imprisoned. This action implied that the king, rather than the pope, had control of the clergy.
Eventually, Boniface wrote Unam Sanctam, which had one and only one goal: asserting that the power of the pope was of a higher order than that of any king. The final sentence of that bull, which you quote, is striking: it does appear to attempt to state, in terms that (these days) would be considered an exercise of magisterial teaching (and therefore, a teaching that is infallible), an irrefutable doctrine. Yet, what does it mean? The traditional reading of that sentence is that one must be “in the communion with the Catholic Church in order to be saved” (cf Sullivan 1992, p. 65). However, if we take that sentence in the context of the entire Bull, then we see a slightly different reading: the idea of “every human creature” isn’t making a statement that distinguishes between Catholics and non-Catholics, but rather, one that asserts that every human creature, even kings, must submit to the authority of the pope.
So, in this case, I would say that Boniface is making a claim that isn’t refuted by later doctrinal statements: although it addresses both submission to papal authority and salvation, it’s clearly an assertion about submission to papal authority.
S
steve_b
Guest
Actually, Irenaeus wrote strongly about the primacy of Rome (all must agree with Rome) in his work “Against Heresies” ~180 a.d. AND he names 12 bishops of Rome, successors to Peter down to his day. That’s important to note, because succession from Peter is important to Irenaeus point he’s making… Also, important here, Irenaeus was a disciple of Bp Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the apostle. That’s how close Irenaeus is to that apostle. And because of knowing Polycap, and coming from the same city as Polycarp, Irenaeus also gives us this personal story about St John and what happened in the bath house at Ephesus episode…v 4
Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-4
Given what we know about the papacy for 2000 years, Irenaeus isn’t breaking new ground here. He’s stating what is, and has already being taught
R
rfournier103
Guest
This is directed at you, crochet lady… Impossible for the Church to be infallible? HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE AUTHORS OF THE BIBLE TO PRODUCE AN INFALLIBLE BOOK? Were the authors of the Bible infallible for at least the time of their authorship? Or did the Bible just magically fall out of the sky? Did Jesus Himself pen all 73 books of the Bible (or as you and your particular faith community believe; 66)?
If all have sinned, and all are fallible at all times; where in the world did the infallible Bible come from??? I am dying to know the Baptist take on where the Bible came from, and the fallibility (or IN-falibillity) of it’s authors.
Again; where did the infallible Bible come from? Are you saying that the Bible contains error???
Any Christian will agree that Jesus IS the way, the truth and the light! AMEN! We ALL need His Saving Grace. We ALSO need our clergy (guided and ordained by the Holy Spirit) to teach us about Jesus and His Ministry and we need them to GET IT RIGHT! Don’t we?
We all must submit to one of three options:
1: The Bible magically fell from the sky. Written by God Himself. Infallibly and without error.
OR
2: Human authors, guided by the Holy Spirit, INFALLIBLY wrote the letters, epistles, Gospels, and books that compose the Holy Bible.
OR
3: The Bible is NOT the inerrant Word of God, and contains errors because it was written by fallible human beings INCAPABLE of producing an INFALLIBLE book.
I also wonder who infallibly decided on the canon of the New Testament? Is THAT up for debate, too? :ehh:
C
Celtic_Maiden
Guest
My Protestant friend’s husband is in the Free Masons and in the Masons he is called
“The Worshipful Master” . There is nothing Worshipful about him either.
•Call the judge of an England High Court “My Lord”
Also you could watch on U Tube a series called “Rumpole of the Bailey” an English Solicitor in an English Court, with him wearing a wig and so is the Judge, they all wear Wigs in British Courts, (Yes My Lord )
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Holy Father – is he holy?
By Steve Ray
The young man stood up at my conference and parroted the Fundamentalist mantra: “The Pope is a sinner like everyone else; why do you call him ‘HOLY Father’?”
I leaned into the microphone and said to the young man, “You should really read your Bible more carefully and do your homework before you stand up and embarrass yourself in front of 2,000 people.” I then explained why we call the Pope our Holy Father.
There are several meanings for the word “holy” and that is what the young man did not understand. If holy simply means without sin, it is hard to see why “things” are called holy. For example, the HOLY OF HOLIES is a place. Is it called holy because it has not sinned?
And what about HOLY GROUND? God told Moses to remove his sandals — he was standing on HOLY GROUND. I guess that means that this dirt had not sinned but the dirt in the next gully had sinnned. HUH?
The word HOLY in Hebrew is kodesh and means apartness, holiness, sacredness, consecration, separateness. Holiness can mean without sin. It can also means dedicated or set apart for God.
So, is the Pope holy in the sense of being completely sinless? Of course not. But the Pope is set apart for God in a special way as the HOLY Father, the Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter.
Bottom line, he is the HOLY FATHER and this fits perfectly with the Bible.
So much for a dumb challenge at a conference.
PS Remember that even WE are called holy. Paul considered all of us saints (literally “holy ones” with a small “s”). He writes, “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother. To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 1:1-2).
R
rfournier103
Guest
Exactly. It’s just mind-boggling… I wonder if we’ll get an answer…?
J
Jeanne1184
Guest
Perhaps there was a time, before mass education, that the Catholic Church had more ‘force-fed’ ways, but it hasn’t been that way in my lifetime.
In parochial school critical thinking skills were taught and expected to be utilized. This included the religion classes on the ethics of cloning and other topics, as well as in comparative religion classes. We were encouraged to think. It is impossible to truly think without questioning. We all think, but not everyone likes to think about the same subjects. And that’s fine.
Apologists would not be necessary and encouraged if the Catholic religion was a dictatorship or a cult (mind control). The key, to me, is to respect the teachings of the Church even if I don’t understand the Biblical basis behind some of them.
“Pick and choose” perhaps came off more lightly than I meant. For instance, I choose not to pray to Mary and saints but only to the Trinity (as do many Catholics). I respect the Church’s teachings in this regard, however, and do not speak against the practice nor think less of those who choose to do it. There’s a difference, to me, between seeing things differently and railing against teachings. I can accept a teaching without agreeing with it; that is, without considering a teaching to be detrimental to souls being Saved.
Optimally, the Church isI a Republic in that man recognizes a Higher Authority (God-Jesus-Holy Spirit) than himself (the basis also of America, way back when). There have been popes who did not Know the Holy Spirit and we know this “by their fruits”.
I don’t know if the following article will be helpful to the OP, but it helped me come to terms with the infalliblity aspect by seeing it as a measure put in place in order to unify the Catholic Church in perilous times, rather than someone with a bent to ‘play God’.
moses.creighton.edu/kripke/news/F96-1.html
M
Markie_Boy
Guest
Very good article - thank you.
I agree - for now I don’t like to pray to Saints or anyone other than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - and I know that’s OK by the Church.
Thanks!
I agree - for now I don’t like to pray to Saints or anyone other than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - and I know that’s OK by the Church.
Thanks!
A
Abu
Guest
As the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., confirms, “Strictly speaking only persons can be infallible as only they are fallible, but the term may also be applied to expressions of the mind in the form of speech or the written word.” The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 224].
“INFALLIBILITY. Freedom from error in teaching the universal Church in matters of faith or morals. As defined by the First Vatican Council…
“The source of the infallibility is the supernatural assistance of the Holy Spirit, who protects the supreme teacher of the Church from error and therefore from misleading the people of God.
“The bearer of the infallibility is every lawful Pope as successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. But the Pope alone is infallible, not others to whom he delegates a part of his teaching authority, for example, the Roman congregations.
“The object of his infallibility is his teaching of faith and morals. This means especially revealed doctrine like the Incarnation. But it also includes any nonrevealed teaching that is in any way connected with revelation.
“As a result, the ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope are unchangeable ‘of themselves,’ that is, not because others in the Church either first instructed the Pope or agree to what he says. (Etym. Latin in-, not + fallibilis; from fallere, to deceive: infallibilis, not able to deceive, or err.)”
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
**Explaining The Idea Of Infallibility
Father William Saunders **
“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” (No. 889).
“As explained in Vatican II’s *Dogmatic Constitution on the Church *(No. 25), this charism of infallibility is exercised in two ways:
First, the college of bishops united with the Holy Father…
Second, the pope, as successor of St. Peter—the one declared as Rock and given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven along with the authority of bonding and loosing (Mt 16:13ff)—by virtue of his office as supreme pastor and teacher of the faithful, enjoys the charism of infallibility.”
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/EXPLINFA.htm
In #891 the CCC, likewise, identifies the reality that the Roman Pontiff exercises infallibility as well as Bishops when teaching in union with the Pope.
So, clearly the Holy Spirit protects the teaching of the Church by the infallibility given to and possessed by the popes. Infallibility is expressed through and by the papacy.
A
adf417
Guest
Markie Boy maybe “praying to saints” could be a minor issue compared to what seems like the 3 questions you should consider.
- are the saints alive?
- do you ask people to pray for you?
- why would you ask a person who may be close to God to pray for you over someone that must be close to God?
- Status