Calling the Pope "Holy Father" and "Papal Infallability"

[benjohnson]

1. Calling the Pope “Holy Father” seems wrong. I don’t think someone born a man should be called Holy. There have been some very un-holy Popes thru history.

I’d call the Pope “Holy Father” and I’m Lutheran. He’s holy, and he’s a Bishop - and the use of “Father” is a traditional sign of respect. Priests work hard and are worthy of respect - they hold the Body and Blood of Christ, proclaim the Gospel and administer the Sacraments.

There’s no harm in being respectful.

 

[crochet_lady]

In response to 'rfournieer103 #53
Where did the infallible Bible come from? For one thing 2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
That verse says that All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God. So what does ‘inspiration’ mean? That God - through the Holy Spirit - - told the writers of the books exactly what to write. And That means that those men could Not write fallible literature. But they, themselves, were fallible People.
In a study Bible – I have both a study Bible and a ‘plain’ Bible – And some Bibles include a brief introduction to the particular book. It’s author / date/ place and a general introduction about the book. The Bible I’m looking at is a NKJ Version – the opening verses of the book of Romans - it’s introduction . include 7 vs. Starting out “Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God…” so Paul was writing 'to all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints;"
1& 2 Corinthians is written by Paul, as are Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, The Thessalonians, Paul is writing to Timothy in both of those books.

So - no the Bible / God’s Word didn’t’ just drop out of the sky’ – at least not in the way that was being suggested. It Didn’t just majically ‘appear’. Though God Is a spirit – and He Did ‘tell the various authors of the books - both Old Testament and New Testament books – what To write. That’s how we Do have God’s infalliable Word to read. But It WAS written on papyrus and Carefully copied until the printing press was invented.
But – I guess that in Some respects – God’s Word almost Could be seen as ‘majically’ appearing. And it Was a Very long time before the Bible as we see it today Became the Bible we have today. After all – it was given to us Through men who were Inspired to write it – over a period of 1500 or so years.
And there are many people who Don’t believe in the inspiration of the Bible. It’s seen as just a collection of stories / fables that make for good reading but not to be taken Too seriously. And it was written by people - so how could it be anything more important than say Esops’ Fables or Shakespear. But ‘WE’ know better than That.
Hopefully that answers your question? Kinda , sort of?

And Some of this ‘discussion’ is about What the Church IS? It does by a variety of names – The Church / the Holy Roman Church / The Roman Catholic Church. Looking at the New Testament – Rome was one of Many geographical locations that Paul visited and shared Jesus Christ the Risen Savior Under the leading / direction of the Holy Spirit. And the church group at Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas out to reach whomever the Holy Spirit led them to. SO – how everything ‘evolved’ into the Vatican at Rome, Italy is an interesting ‘saga’.
And the other ‘option’ is that God used / led Paul to preach to the Gentile people and led Peter to reach the Jewish population, which is found in Acts 2.

 

[Gorgias]

Two thoughts, crochet lady…

In response to 'rfournieer103 #53
Where did the infallible Bible come from? For one thing 2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
That verse says that All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God. So what does ‘inspiration’ mean? That God - through the Holy Spirit - - told the writers of the books exactly what to write.

First thought: your assertion that ‘inspiration’ means ‘dictation’ isn’t anything that’s in the Bible; rather, it’s a “tradition of men;” that is, that’s the interpretation that you (or your Church) has adopted. Before we could move forward on this assertion, we’d have to agree on it, then…

And That means that those men could Not write fallible literature. But they, themselves, were fallible People.

Second thought: you agree with the Catholic doctrine of infallibility more than you think you do! Because, of course, this is exactly what the doctrine claims: the pope, himself, is a fallible person. However, “through the Holy Spirit”, a pope “could not write fallible” doctrine. Same idea! Scripture is inerrant and magisterial teaching is infallible, because God promised that protection to His Church! (Not 2 Tim 16, though, but rather, Mt 16:18 – “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against [the Church]”!!!)

 

[mardukm]

Dear Markie Boy,

I am still attending RCIA, and working on accepting church teachings.

My last two are these - any insight here is appreciated:

1. Calling the Pope “Holy Father” seems wrong. I don’t think someone born a man should be called Holy. There have been some very un-holy Popes thru history.
2. Papal infallability - I have read enough to understand it, and just can’t accept it. I have seen quotes from Popes of the past that did not support this. I just read some on another thread here. If I don’t accept Papal infallability - can one still be Catholic?

Thank you all!

It seems your concerns with number 1 has been satisfied.

There have been some great answers to number 2, but there have also been some that have been incorrect. None of us here want you to be misled or confused about the Truth regarding the Church’s teaching on “papal” infallibility It is indeed a great source of division with non-Catholics since it is so greatly misunderstood (by many Catholics and most non-Catholics alike).

The details regarding 'papal" infallibility can await according to the precise info you want or need. For now, I noticed your comment regarding people who leave the Catholic Church. You stated that since they are not invincibly ignorant, then they are damned, and that this represents a weakness in the Catholic position. Two things to consider:

(1) “Invincible ignorance” does not merely mean not having intellectual knowledge of something. It has to do mostly with the inability to believe due to circumstances outside of one’s control, not merely the inability to know about things. So people may have an intellectual knowledge of Catholic teachings, but if they do not have a proper understanding of it, and end up leaving the Catholic Church thinking the Catholic Church is teaching something it is not actually teaching, then that also falls within the realm of invincible ignorance. Would you agree that there is a big difference between knowing ABOUT what the Catholic Church teaches, and actually UNDERSTANDING what the Catholic Church teaches? I assume you know the difference, otherwise you would not be here asking questions.

(2) I have met way too many people who have left the Catholic Church because of their MISunderstanding about the prerogatives of the papacy. You would be surprised at how many Catholics MISunderstand the Catholic Church’s teaching on the papacy (some of those types of Catholics are in this thread right now). You would be surprised, in general, how many Catholics do not actually understand their Faith (while having an intellectual knowledge of it) and therefore leave it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[adf417]

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

Do you think this can be applied to crochet lady’s post #62?

 

[rfournier103]

And the concept that the Holy Roman Catholic church is infallible – cause Romans 3:23 states 'for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

John 14: 6 Jesus Christ is telling us that “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me.” So – Jesus Christ is our Truth / Jesus said “I and My Father are One.” All others are capable of error.

In response to rfournier103 #53
Where did the infallible Bible come from? For one thing 2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
That verse says that All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God. So what does ‘inspiration’ mean? That God - through the Holy Spirit - - told the writers of the books exactly what to write. **And That means that those men could Not write fallible literature. But they, themselves, were fallible People. **

So - no the Bible / God’s Word didn’t’ just drop out of the sky’ – at least not in the way that was being suggested. It Didn’t just majically ‘appear’. Though God Is a spirit – and He Did 'tell the various authors of the books - both Old Testament and New Testament books – what To write. That’s how we Do have God’s infalliable Word to read. But It WAS written on papyrus and Carefully copied until the printing press was invented.
But – I guess that in Some respects – God’s Word almost Could be seen as ‘majically’ appearing. And it Was a Very long time before the Bible as we see it today Became the Bible we have today. After all --** it was given to us Through men who were Inspired to write it** –

So the writers WEREN’T capable of error when they were writing the Bible, but WERE capable of error at all other times; is that what you’re trying to say? I thought you were trying to say that nobody is ever capable of being infallible. Which is it?

What WE are trying to say is that a VALIDLY ELECTED successor of Peter; the shepherd appointed by Christ (John 21:15-17); CAN interpret the Bible infallibly; UNDER THE GUIDENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT; when making a proclamation regarding FAITH and MORALS; EX-CATHEDRA.

ALL of those criteria MUST be met to have an INFALLIBLE interpretation. I think the last time one of those proclamations was made was the 1950s. Doesn’t happen all that often, and the Vicar of Christ IS fallible at ALL OTHER TIMES.

You don’t think that the Holy Spirit can guide a human being today? It only happened in ye olde Bible times? If so, what has the Holy Spirit been up to since the completion of the Bible? Inquiring minds want to know…

And it Was a Very long time before the Bible as we see it today Became the Bible we have today. After all – it was given to us Through men who were Inspired to write it – over a period of 1500 or so years.

Really? That long? According to the “pillar and ground of truth”, we’ve had the Bible since the Council of Hippo in 393. Do you have a source that says otherwise?

And there are many people who Don’t believe in the inspiration of the Bible.

And there are many people who reject that the Holy Spirit guides CHRIST’S Church today.

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

Maybe at this moment in time it might be better to take a break from RCIA and read the Church Fathers, Catholicism for Dummies, and pray much, its far better to be honest with yourself and God than pretend to be a Catholic while having all these doubts about certain aspects, its like anything in life, if you join a Golf Club, Army , Navy, you have to believe what is taught, not have some things in you don’t believe in, then its not for you.

You have to have your two feet in not one foot in and one foot out, I know when I came into the Church I was full of Joy and fervour, if I had doubts I would not have changed, nor would I have this joy in my heart.

My motto is “When in doubt, stay out”.

Pray about it, ask questions about what you are having problems with, the priest will help you then if nothing has changed, put the whole matter on hold, until you feel ready to give your all to God with no doubts, Lord I put my trust in you.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Originally Posted by AmbroseSJ
I would only change your statement thus:

Quite obviously Christ cannot teach error and has protected His Church, INCLUDING His chosen Supreme Vicar, from teaching error on faith and morals – binding and loosing. Obviously Church infallibility does not come THROUGH the Pope. Just the reverse. Otherwise good post!

The highlighted, maybe due to phrasing, is not exactly a correct statement either…

Papal infallibility defined

    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.

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

Steve I just noticed your comment. You may be right about phrasing (misleading perhaps) But I believe my statement stands as is, if you realize that I am referring to CHURCH INFALLIBILITY and not to CONSENT OF THE CHURCH. For some reason that is a difficult distinction.

 

[Markie_Boy]

Maybe at this moment in time it might be better to take a break from RCIA and read the Church Fathers, Catholicism for Dummies, and pray much, its far better to be honest with yourself and God than pretend to be a Catholic while having all these doubts about certain aspects, its like anything in life, if you join a Golf Club, Army , Navy, you have to believe what is taught, not have some things in you don’t believe in, then its not for you.

You have to have your two feet in not one foot in and one foot out, I know when I came into the Church I was full of Joy and fervour, if I had doubts I would not have changed, nor would I have this joy in my heart.

My motto is “When in doubt, stay out”.

Pray about it, ask questions about what you are having problems with, the priest will help you then if nothing has changed, put the whole matter on hold, until you feel ready to give your all to God with no doubts, Lord I put my trust in you.

A very good statement. I can get Catholicism for Dummies, but where does one read the Church Fathers?

I feel I have already given all my trust to God. I am trying to build my life around that. I know it’s a journey that does not end until we me Him.

As I type this I am already thinking - yes, but I have so much growing to do yet…

 

[Jeanne1184]

Markie Boy maybe “praying to saints” could be a minor issue compared to what seems like the 3 questions you should consider.

1. are the saints alive?
2. do you ask people to pray for you?
3. why would you ask a person who may be close to God to pray for you over someone that must be close to God?

Peace!!!

After I found the love of Jesus (beyond doubt), I used to try to talk people out of praying to anyone except the Trinity using the line of logic you present here. It didn’t work and I couldn’t understand why it didn’t work. I’ve since learned that logic wasn’t the only necessary ingredient; I needed to consider the heart.

Two key factors came to light when I began asking questions:

1. Several who prayed to Mary and/or the saints felt a sense of unworthiness to pray to God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit; feeling undeserving of Their attention or consideration. And unanswered prayers felt like rejection.
2. Conscious or unconscious anger at/hate of God. Somehow praying to a saint who is ‘more human’ fulfills the need we feel to pray to someone outside of ourselves without confronting or admitting the underlying anger and confusion.

One person related that there is less disappointment when prayers aren’t answered when praying to non-Trinity persons than when one thinks that God/Jesus is ignoring their plight. More like as we say to friends, “That’s okay, thanks for trying.”

My own experience was going from being raised Catholic and then rejecting the God of the Old Testament who, in my mind, was too hateful for words, and Jesus being too cryptic. While I felt the pull to seek, I was angry that Salvation was not easier to Find.

I couldn’t understand others who prayed to non-Trinity persons because I was so hard-hearted that I prayed to no one. Until hitting bottom in alcoholism when I simply thought in my mind, from a place of giving up getting ‘out’ by my own efforts, “Somebody help me…I can’t do this…anymore.”

The ‘synchronicities’ that came after took me into sobriety…plus. My ‘Higher Power’ went from generic to Jesus.

I share that to express the connection I saw after asking why others prayed to non-Trinity persons. It wasn’t because I prayed to Jesus by name that I was delivered from alcoholism and spiritually fatal thinking, it was because my will (finally) admitted defeat and asked for help. Holy Spirit didn’t need me to supply a particular name, It read the kneeling condition of my heart and will. For so many years I was like the story of the little boy who was forced to sit down in church and who glared up at his mother and said, “I’m sitting down on the outside, but I’m standing up on the inside!”

We pour out our miseries
God just hears a melody
Beautiful, the mess we are
The honest cries of breaking hearts ((and wills))
Are better than a Hallelujah

(Amy Grant lyrics)

I don’t know where Marionology came from, but if it began from an Inspiration to provide an umbrella under which more of us could gather that leads to Jesus, then perhaps that is why the Catholic Church grew from the harsh conditons surrounding Vatican I and the infallibility statements of Marionology.

I’ve thought long and hard about who the ‘shadow of Peter’ is who killed Ananias and Saphira, and who is the Spirit given the power to bind and loose.

Just as what gave the apostles and disciples of them the name of ‘saints’, it is the Holy Spirit who provides the Righteous in, “The petition of a Righteous man availeth much in its working.” It is the Presence of the Holy Spirit in a Pope that gives him the Authority of Peter’s position, not the position itself.

So, for point #2 of the OP, people do feel compelled (spiritual instinct?) to ask other living persons to pray for them - if they think (subconsciously or not) that that person has the Holy Spirit within them. I’ve heard many pastors remark about this on TV programs. (One of them said to a request, "Why are you asking me? Why don’t you pray yourself?) Perhaps it’s because a person who has the Holy Spirit active within can petition that Power to ‘loose/forgive’ sins of others so that their ability to See is no longer blocked.

At least, that is what I deduce from Scripture. As St. Paul would ‘confer/grant posession/bring together the soul of another with the Holy Spirit’, he must first have had the Holy Spirit within himself. And somehow he passed It on to groups of people, so the Bible reports.

Most of this line of thinking comes from pondering how so many priests have ‘broken bad’. It is no surprise for the general population rejecting God and religion, but it boggled my mind for so many clergy to be so stricken.

Thus far, it appears possible that some of those ordained and ‘invested with the Holy Spirit’, actually participated in a ritual without Content - if the one doing the ‘laying of hands’ (or however it is done) was not Indwelt by the Holy Spirit. It just doesn’t sound plausible that someone truly Indwelt could engage in sexual sin.

This begs the question (for me, anyway) of whether it is possible for an Indwelt priest to confer the Holy Spirit on penitents who meet whatever criteria Paul used to do so. It just seems that there must be a way (that has been lost/temporarily misplaced) for members of the Church to become Indwelt as well, so that the Catholic Church truly will be the Light in the Darkness we are faciing. No need for convincing others the Catholic Church is true; others would just be drawn to the hearts of the members.

This is just the ‘view from here’ at this time. There seems to have been an ‘influx’ of enlightened folk during the 1800s and there about…what brought it on?

Feeding Hope…

 

[YADA]

A very good statement. I can get Catholicism for Dummies, but where does one read the Church Fathers?

I feel I have already given all my trust to God. I am trying to build my life around that. I know it’s a journey that does not end until we me Him.

As I type this I am already thinking - yes, but I have so much growing to do yet…

amazon.com/Faith-Early-Fathers-Three-Volume-Set/dp/0814610250

This three volume set represents the patristic works. Volume 1 ends circa 382; Volume 2 concludes with Julian of Eclanum (d. 454); Volume 3 ends with St. John of Damascene (d. 749).

 

[Jeanne1184]

Maybe at this moment in time it might be better to take a break from RCIA and read the Church Fathers, Catholicism for Dummies, and pray much, its far better to be honest with yourself and God than pretend to be a Catholic while having all these doubts about certain aspects, its like anything in life, if you join a Golf Club, Army , Navy, you have to believe what is taught, not have some things in you don’t believe in, then its not for you.

You have to have your two feet in not one foot in and one foot out, I know when I came into the Church I was full of Joy and fervour, if I had doubts I would not have changed, nor would I have this joy in my heart.

My motto is “When in doubt, stay out”.

Pray about it, ask questions about what you are having problems with, the priest will help you then if nothing has changed, put the whole matter on hold, until you feel ready to give your all to God with no doubts, Lord I put my trust in you.

It would seem more spiritually advantageous to invite others into the Church and to partake of the Sacraments (Confession and Communion, in particular) that offer contact with the Holy Spirit rather than to tell someone that they must ‘first figure it out on their own’. None of us gains Understanding without Help - the Bible nor dogma. Confession is critical and if other churches offered that routinely, perhaps sending someone to another church first for Confession would work for them.

But to deny the Sacrament of Confession to a Seeker seems truly harsh. If you can’t grasp the subtleties of dogma, then you’ll just have to chance dying in your sins?

If I’m reading this incorrectly or if the Church truly functions this way for those not born into Catholicism…please correct the impression.

Edit: I was under the notion that ‘the masses’ simply weren’t interested in Confession until they had reason to become Seekers.

But if a non-member of the Chiurch did come to a priest for Confession - would the priest refuse to absolve someone of sin in that case? Would they have to become members of the Catholic Church first?

Sorry, I’ve just never had a reason to question from this angle.

 

[Gorgias]

But if a non-member of the Chiurch did come to a priest for Confession - would the priest refuse to absolve someone of sin in that case? Would they have to become members of the Catholic Church first?

In danger of death, if a non-Catholic Christian came to a priest, seeking sacramental absolution through the sacrament of reconciliation, and if they believed that the sacrament does what the Church says it does, then that person may be absolved. However, if a person wishes to approach a priest for confession, but does not believe in what the Church teaches, then what does it mean for them to come to the priest? That it’s a kind of superstition? That they wish to ‘pick and choose’ which of the Church’s sacraments they wish to accept? In this case, a priest should not offer absolution to such a person (at the very least, perhaps the priest could enter into conversation with the person, offering them the opportunity to join the Church).

 

[Jeanne1184]

In danger of death, if a non-Catholic Christian came to a priest, seeking sacramental absolution through the sacrament of reconciliation, and if they believed that the sacrament does what the Church says it does, then that person may be absolved. However, if a person wishes to approach a priest for confession, but does not believe in what the Church teaches, then what does it mean for them to come to the priest? That it’s a kind of superstition? That they wish to ‘pick and choose’ which of the Church’s sacraments they wish to accept? In this case, a priest should not offer absolution to such a person (at the very least, perhaps the priest could enter into conversation with the person, offering them the opportunity to join the Church).

Thanks for your reply. Do you think there is any room to modify this position in the spirit of responding to the needs of the people and their spiritual hunger that often takes them down unfruitful paths for years?

That the ‘new evangelization’ could include classes on examination of conscience and Confession - RCIA and otherwise? It isn’t that I don’t see reasons for the exclusivity of the Church in times past, but we’ve come to a new low in the world (and, perhaps, more willingness to seek Solution for the misery).

The phrasing of what I feel trying to push out isn’t quite right, so I’ll just move on to my experience and see if things form up better.

From experience, I know the Power of Confession. I know the ‘lightness of being’ that occurred when I (finally) pushed past my ego screaming, “DON’T DO IT, ETHEL!” and confessed the biggest dragon in the dungeon of my mind.

It was after that that I noticed that the Bible began to ‘read differently’. It was as if by emptying a big file from the Recycle Bin of my soul that suddenly new and good files could now slip through the opening and take root.

Which causes me to wonder now if it wouldn’t win more souls to Christ and to the Catholic Church if Confession (after preparation) was the first order of business for RCIA. Forgiveness is a very powerful Force that would do more to convince people of the Truth of the NT and the Church’s committment to Confession than trying to enter new data on an already stuffed hard drive, so to speak. (It’s what brought me back, anyway.)

Confession was a simple process in the days of the NT. However, I do agree that the ground must be tilled in order for the Holy Spirit to bring to mind buried sins (for me, that was the 4th Step of AA). One of the pitfalls of confessing only what I thought were worthy to be called sins was a failure to allow myself to be led by the Holy Spirit.

I remember one time a very small sin of childhood kept coming to mind. I pushed it off with, “I was just a kid; that’s insignificant.” It persisted often enough to make me reconsider. After all, what would it hurt to confess it even if it was thought too petty? Well, beneath that ‘insignificant sin’ was hiding a sin wrapped in much shame. Another chain bit the dust. Another healing of the past in the present.

Confession would be an ongoing process throughout RCIA and maybe produce some very devout Catholics long before they are added to the membership roles of the Church. Maybe, in time, open it up to the world at large…maybe a boatload of new priest vocations would result…with Christ, anything is possible, eh?

Would this be something priests could do on their own or would it need formal permission? Could they ‘extend their services’ without formal decree?

Since I’ve never actually studied all the twists and turns of Confession in Church doctine, it may or may not be a viable idea for the new evangelization efforts. Maybe a pilot project?

 

[steve_b]

Steve I just noticed your comment. You may be right about phrasing (misleading perhaps) But I believe my statement stands as is, if you realize that I am referring to CHURCH INFALLIBILITY and not to CONSENT OF THE CHURCH. For some reason that is a difficult distinction.

If I’m understanding you correctly, are you refering to Lumen Gentium and the distinctions it made in this area?

For example

Re: Ch 3 sections 22 & 25 (emphasis mine)

(excerpt from #22)

"But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock…

[snip]

(excerpt from #25)

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)
And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter."…[snip]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Is that the distinction you’re referring to?

 

[Gorgias]

Thanks for your reply. Do you think there is any room to modify this position in the spirit of responding to the needs of the people and their spiritual hunger that often takes them down unfruitful paths for years?

Hmm… it’s an interesting question. What, precisely are you thinking of? Confession for whom? Lapsed Catholics? Non-Catholic Christians who wish to enter the Church? Non-Catholic Christians who only want Reconciliation but nothing else? Non-Christians? The answer would vary, based on the intended audience!

Which causes me to wonder now if it wouldn’t win more souls to Christ and to the Catholic Church if Confession (after preparation) was the first order of business for RCIA.

Well… again, the question is “for whom?” For the unbaptized, it wouldn’t make sense (since baptism brings forgiveness of all sins, as well as the fact that baptism itself is the “gateway to the sacraments”. For others, perhaps…! And, in fact, for those Christians seeking full communion with the Church, Confession is part of the RCIA experience, prior to the Easter Vigil!

Would this be something priests could do on their own or would it need formal permission? Could they ‘extend their services’ without formal decree?

It depends on what’s being suggested, you know?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

In response to 'rfournieer103 #53
Where did the infallible Bible come from? For one thing 2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
That verse says that All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God. So what does ‘inspiration’ mean? That God - through the Holy Spirit - - told the writers of the books exactly what to write. And That means that those men could Not write fallible literature. But they, themselves, were fallible People.
In a study Bible – I have both a study Bible and a ‘plain’ Bible – And some Bibles include a brief introduction to the particular book. It’s author / date/ place and a general introduction about the book. The Bible I’m looking at is a NKJ Version – the opening verses of the book of Romans - it’s introduction . include 7 vs. Starting out “Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God…” so Paul was writing 'to all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints;"
1& 2 Corinthians is written by Paul, as are Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, The Thessalonians, Paul is writing to Timothy in both of those books.

So - no the Bible / God’s Word didn’t’ just drop out of the sky’ – at least not in the way that was being suggested. It Didn’t just majically ‘appear’. Though God Is a spirit – and He Did ‘tell the various authors of the books - both Old Testament and New Testament books – what To write. That’s how we Do have God’s infalliable Word to read. But It WAS written on papyrus and Carefully copied until the printing press was invented.
But – I guess that in Some respects – God’s Word almost Could be seen as ‘majically’ appearing. And it Was a Very long time before the Bible as we see it today Became the Bible we have today. After all – it was given to us Through men who were Inspired to write it – over a period of 1500 or so years.
And there are many people who Don’t believe in the inspiration of the Bible. It’s seen as just a collection of stories / fables that make for good reading but not to be taken Too seriously. And it was written by people - so how could it be anything more important than say Esops’ Fables or Shakespear. But ‘WE’ know better than That.
Hopefully that answers your question? Kinda , sort of?

And Some of this ‘discussion’ is about What the Church IS? It does by a variety of names – The Church / the Holy Roman Church / The Roman Catholic Church. Looking at the New Testament – Rome was one of Many geographical locations that Paul visited and shared Jesus Christ the Risen Savior Under the leading / direction of the Holy Spirit. And the church group at Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas out to reach whomever the Holy Spirit led them to. SO – how everything ‘evolved’ into the Vatican at Rome, Italy is an interesting ‘saga’.
And the other ‘option’ is that God used / led Paul to preach to the Gentile people and led Peter to reach the Jewish population, which is found in Acts 2.

you know, I asked you before about Paul’s words to Timothy you quote above --‘all scripture is inspired etc.’. . . please tell me, when St. Paul wrote this (this was probably about AD 60 at the latest), did the majority of Christians accept AS SCRIPTURE what we call the Old Testament and the New Testament? Did St Paul know the gospels were Scripture when, according to many protestant scholars, they weren’t even written when he wrote his letter to Timothy?

You keep saying the Bible didn’t fall from the sky, but I notice you’re doing a lot of side swiping about who gave it to us. . .God could have picked a lot of ways to give it to us but He chose to give it to us through the Catholic Church. And He chose to do that 1500 years before the majority of people were literate and could actually read it ‘for themselves’. What would all you protestants have DONE without the Catholic Church doing the work of determining through the Spirit what your Bible is? (although come to think of it, some, though not all, of us weren’t content with accepting all of it and decided on your own, without the Holy Spirit, to ignore a book here and a book there). . .

 

[Jeanne1184]

Hmm… it’s an interesting question. What, precisely are you thinking of? Confession for whom? Lapsed Catholics? Non-Catholic Christians who wish to enter the Church? Non-Catholic Christians who only want Reconciliation but nothing else? Non-Christians? The answer would vary, based on the intended audience!

Well… again, the question is “for whom?” For the unbaptized, it wouldn’t make sense (since baptism brings forgiveness of all sins, as well as the fact that baptism itself is the “gateway to the sacraments”. For others, perhaps…! And, in fact, for those Christians seeking full communion with the Church, Confession is part of the RCIA experience, prior to the Easter Vigil!

It depends on what’s being suggested, you know?

Thanks for the prompts. I’m going to let this marinate a couple of days while thinking about the parameters that would have to be included. Perhaps there isn’t a way to have the ideal mesh with reality. Or perhaps the objective can be approached from a different angle. Will see.

 

[crochet_lady]

Tantum ergo
Referring to your comment about whether Paul knew ‘all Scripture’ when he wrote it? Well – that’s the beauty of being inspired of God to write something. He was following God’s directions – he didn’t Have to ‘understand’ the Purpose of what he was being told to write. He simply needed to be willing to write what he was Told to write. Paul Was chosen by God to write a Lot of what is referred to as doctrine – and to share about the missionary journeys that were made etc. So others could read what he was led to write and , thus, learn about what had already taken place. And Because he was inspired to write it – we also know it is totally accurate.
A beautiful example of being inspired to ‘write Scripture’ that he could not possibly have known about was Moses being inspired to write the first few chapters of Genesis. “In the beginning God created…” No people were there – Adam was created and then Eve. But No people were around to observe God creating the world. And That is how ‘future generations’ Can know exactly How this world came to be. And in chapter 2 vs 10 -14, God gave ‘us’ the names of the river that divided and became 4 river heads. So that ‘we’ could relate to the area of the world where the Garden of Eden was located. That is Was real.

As for the Catholic church giving the world the Bible – they were the Only ones given permission To print it. Others had to leave the country in order to get parts printed / distributed. And, yes, there were people here and there who Did follow the leading of the Holy Spirit To separate from the RCC Because they felt that the ‘hierarchie’ had been leading the people Away from Scripture that they were finally Able to read for themselves. God is the Sole Authority – Jesus Christ being the Son of God – Holy Spirit leading, guiding.

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

A very good statement. I can get Catholicism for Dummies, but where does one read the Church Fathers?

I feel I have already given all my trust to God. I am trying to build my life around that. I know it’s a journey that does not end until we me Him.

As I type this I am already thinking - yes, but I have so much growing to do yet…

You can get the Book on the" Church Fathers" either in a Catholic Bookshop or on Amazon
I. Fathers of the Church by Mike Aquilina
2. Church Fathers From Clement of Rome to Augustine by Benedict XV1
and there are others authors but its a “must” read for a convert.

Its an excellent to read what the early Church Fathers thought and taught. I personally like Ignatius of Antioch , but you might find one that you prefer, This and Catholicism for Dummies and your well on your way of knowing the Faith, then you have the Catholicism of the Catholic Church, who knows after all this you might end up being a priest. !!!