Critics of Papal Infallibility: Can you name other examples of popes making fallible decisions apart from Honorius I?

[josephdaniel29]

As the OP I have to say, we’ve gotten way way way off topic here. It would be nice to return to the original point of discussion: for all the critics out there of papal infallibility, for all the nay-sayers that feel infallibility is innovative and false, can you produce any good historical examples of popes erring in theological or moral teachings OTHER than Honorius I?

I have to point out my brother that you are begging the question. All of the post Schism popes who confess the filioque are teaching heresy.

In all seriousness. We do have plenty of examples of a different popes making contradictory statements. In that case one of them has to be wrong. A recent example is Pope Pius XI’s teaching on “frustrating” conception.

Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. - Casti cunnubii

Contrast that with Pope Paul VI’s Humanae vitae, where he teaches that it is okay to frustrate conception as long as you frustrate it in a manner approved by me.

Tthe Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. - Humanae Vitae

Either frustrating conception is “an offence against the law of God” or it is not. Either Pope Pius XI or Pope Paul VI have to be wrong.

In Christ
Joe

 

[david_ruiz]

I’d love it if we could get back on topic, everybody. See my post a couple back…

Any comments on St.Stephen’s (pope-254-257) “gaff” , that the rite of baptism forgives sins but does not communicate the Spirit, which is contrary to today’s teaching ?

 

[david_ruiz]

I have to point out my brother that you are begging the question. All of the post Schism popes who confess the filioque are teaching heresy.

In all seriousness. We do have plenty of examples of a different popes making contradictory statements. In that case one of them has to be wrong. A recent example is Pope Pius XI’s teaching on “frustrating” conception.

Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. - Casti cunnubii

Contrast that with Pope Paul VI’s Humanae vitae, where he teaches that it is okay to frustrate conception as long as you frustrate it in a manner approved by me.

Tthe Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. - Humanae Vitae

Either frustrating conception is “an offence against the law of God” or it is not. Either Pope Pius XI or Pope Paul VI have to be wrong.

In Christ
Joe

Pretty good .Is all that sort of stuff up for grabs ? Like 19th century popes calling against bible societies and even freedom of conscience ? Was not reading scripture in the vernacular spoken against by some ?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Here are a few infallible statements that are no longer true. I know many will say that the Church never meant this for the invincibly ignorant but that is not the message that comes across in these statements. You can’t read these or hear these statements and come to the conclusion that non-Catholics will be saved.

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which **no one at all **is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.). . . .

This is a perfect example of why I take serious issue with the idea of submitting mind and will to the Roman Pontiff. This particular issue was taught for centuries, one Pope reinforcing another; and yet, today, it is not held to be true. Just think of all the Catholics who were mislead for centuries; and all those who converted under threat of the eternal flames of Hell (definition of Hell seems to be different today also). And----there are still echoes of this teaching. I have seen Catholics posts on CAF, saying there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Even if the CC can somehow argue that these are not Ex Cathedra statements; that does nothing to excuse misleading Catholics for centuries. This teaching of no salvation outside the CC seems to fulfill the requirements of LUMEN GENTIUM, for submitting to non-Ex Cathedra teachings.

(Emphasis is mine. If you follow my posts, you probably have LUMEN GENTIUM, 25, memorized by now )

**DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

CHAPTER III, ON THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH
AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE EPISCOPATE

25.** Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. (vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)

Catholic Encyclopedia
Link: newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
**
Degrees of heresy**
Both matter and form of heresy admit of degrees which find expression in the following technical formula of theology and canon law. Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly “defined” or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy. Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology. Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy (see THEOLOGICAL CENSURES).

Does the false teaching of no salvation outside the Catholic Church fall under heresy in the first degree, sententia haeresi proxima (approaching heresy), propositio theologice erronea (erroneous in theology), sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens (an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy,) or something else? Just trying to understand how this works.

Then there is still the question of which teaching is truth: the past teaching or present teaching regarding salvation outside the Catholic Church. How do you know which teaching is right?

on77nyc, if you don’t mind my asking: as a Catholic, how do you feel about teachings changing from one century to the next?

Respectfully,
Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Never heard of this. I can’t comment on it at this point until I read about it at length.

Any comments on St.Stephen’s (pope-254-257) “gaff” , that the rite of baptism forgives sins but does not communicate the Spirit, which is contrary to today’s teaching ?

 

[rev_kevin]

I dont’ know where that has been said, but you might want to consider your sources. It is not a good idea to believe everything you hear.

Most protestant ministers don’t claim infallibility, anyway, so isnt this a moot point?

Absolutely! And we see more “inspired” persons who believe they are led by the HS than we can count. Many of them taking up opposing positions. They can’t all be right!

I agree that all those who read scripture with a sincere heart, praying for the guidance of the HS, believe that their conclusions are from God. However God is not the author of confusion and division. He also does not reveal things that oppose what He has previously revealed.

The gift is for the Church. It prevents the Church from falling into error. It is the means by which He guides us into all Truth. Any of us can benefit from the gift, if we remain in unity with the Church, which is infallibly guided.

Do you think there is part of the Truth that should be excluded from His promise?

1. My sources have been here in the CAF. This has been said Many, Many, Many times in the past by Many, Many, Many Catholics.
2. Your right they don’t because they know man is fallible in all matters.
3. Opposing positions on your dogmas, your canons, or traditions?
4. Previously revealed in your dogmas, canons, the Bible, traditions?
5. Christ is the Church and Christ cannot fall into err. If by church you mean the CC then I have to disagree with you there. The CC can err. Christ, the church, is the only one who can’t err.
6. I asked, How do you know his (POPE) teaching is inspired by the HS?
   Response, There are many conditions and tests that are applied.
   I asked, with every interperitation of Scriipture?
   With every moral judgment?
   With everything that has to bo with spiritual matters?
   You responded with, Do you think there is a part of the truth that should be excluded
   from his promise?
   So is the answer yes/no

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Of course Christ is the Church. And of course He cannot err. But where is Christ in the world? Where are his sacraments, moral teachings definitely stated, his authority, his forgivenss made tangiable, and his theology? It doesn’t just come from the bible or a loud voice from heaven…

It comes through the Church. Christ cannot err but he has to go through men to work in our lives. He makes his truths manifest to us through men. He makes his will known through men. He forgives us through men. We are baptized, married, and confirmed through men. Likewise the sacraments of the Eucharist and confession come to us through men.

The Church is visible, tangiable, and real, not just an idea of a mental state with other believers. Historically we see this is true.

Just out of curiosity, have you read the early church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, Polycarp, the Didache, etc.? I think if you take the time to read these very, very early documents by men who were disciples of the original apostle JOHN!!, you’ll see that the early church was

Eucharistic
Liturgical
Episcopal in polity with bishops, priests, and deacons
Had a priesthood
Was sacrificial
Visible

You’ll also realize that the councils governed by bishops brought you the christological truths that we all consider “no-brainers” in this day and age—the Trinity, etc.

You’ll also see that the Latin West assembled the canon of Scripture and we have a debt of thanks to the Catholic Church for the bible. The Bible didn’t make the Church. The Church made the bible.

things I would consider…

1. Christ is the Church and Christ cannot fall into err. If by church you mean the CC then I have to disagree with you there. The CC can err. Christ, the church, is the only one who can’t err.

 

[guanophore]

As usual, guano, you make everything personal and internalize each argument a poster makes as directed at you personally.

On the contrary, I rarely do this. In fact, I know that many of the accusations that are leveled against Catholics not only have nothing to do with me, but little to do with Catholicism, either. However, in this particular case they were obviously personal.

You don’t need to prove how devout you are and how many hours you pray and what seminaries you’ve been in.

No, I don’t, and I don’t think it would be possible to do so on an anonymous internet forum. The reason I brought it up is to show that your “blind obedience” accusation is so far off the mark. That is why it is obvious that it has more to do with you than it does with me.

You don’t know what “issues emanate from” me. You don’t even know me.

Of course I am limited to what I read in your posts, and you are right, I don’t know you. However, I have never detected anything in your posts that seemed disingenuous, or that would indicate you are role playing. I believe you are writing your authentic thoughts and feelings.

What you do, as I stated, is personalize and internalize arguments you don’t feel you’re winning. I’ll leave it there.

Well, let’s see:

I think you fail …

**And you also assume **that all monarchies and rulers post-Catholic Europe were evil and corrupt.

There are people who think **just like you **here. They’re called radical Muslims. They think the world would be “easier” also if we all just had a caliphate again and Islam was the one religion of the world.

**You object **to my use of the term “blindly submit” my will and intellect. I find it accurate or I wouldn’t use it. It is blind. You accept everything the pope says not out of using critical thinking or analysis but just total blind obedience.

** You are **of the mindset that the popes are infallible, cannot err, and are the rock and cornerstone of all Christendom so whatever they say ex cathedra or otherwise is perfect. This is blind submission, IMO. You are not thinking about it, just accepting it.

Here are just a few of the statements you have made about what I think and believe, none of which are accurate. I think it would be hard to take these any other way except that they are statements about what you think I believe and espouse. They are not generalized, and are in a post where you are quoting my response to you.

I am at a loss to understand why it is important for you to believe that I think these things, or espouse these positions. I can only conclude that you are projecting your own ideas on to me, and reacting to them as if they are mine.

 

[ron77nyc]

ron77nyc, if you don’t mind my asking: as a Catholic, how do you feel about teachings changing from one century to the next?

Respectfully,
Anna

Changing is OK. The denial of the change is what stirs up a lot of questions. They would be more believable if they said something like “the Holy Spirit guides the Church differently at different times in history.” That’s a good one. Maybe Pope Benedict will read this and use it the next time he speaks.

 

[guanophore]

How in God’s green earth can you know I’m emotional about this by sitting on the other side of a computer screen? LOL! If these insults weren’t so sad this would be hysterically funny. Projection? Now we’re delving into Freud?

What other cause would there be to assign beliefs and ideas to someone, then criticise them in the other person, when that person does not espouse those positions?

You are not in the custom of using strawmen, so something else must have been set off inside.

Besides, it is not an insult to have projections. It is a normal defense function that people use every day. Just like the rest of them, their purpose is to help us cope with the daily stressors of life.

Bottom line is this: you’re doing it again. Your argument doesn’t hold water, several people disagree with you so to satisfy yourself in your mind you decide we’re irrational, crazed, angry, emotionally unstable, and nuts. I would hope in your heart of hearts and intellect, you know that that statement is nuts. I assure you I’m not an emotional type LOL

No one has disagreed with me, Gurney. You have assigned positions to me that I do not hold, and you have disagreed with those.

I don’t think you are crazed or out of your mind, or even emotionally unstable. I think you have some emotional reasoning on this topic (as evidenced by your unreasonable assignment of positions to me that I do not hold) and emotional upset about what you call “blind obedience to the Pope”. I can understand why the subject is upsetting for you.

Yes, I agree that you are not the emotional type, which is why this type of behavior is very out of character with the rest of your posts. This is one of the main things that indicates a nerve has been struck.

Nobody is trying to get you to defend anything against your will. Now you’re inventing strawman accusations by posters? oy vay!

You seem to believe that there is a “position” that I cannot defend. On the contrary, I have not forwarded any “positions” on this thread. I have responded to you and Anna’s angst about LG. You have assigned positions to me that emanate from your own imagination. I have no defense for those.

If you want to make yourself feel edified by accusing your opponents of irrational emotionalism while you play the cool, calm, and collected card, fine by me.

Some irrational emotionalism will inevitable occur when discussing charged issues such as this.

You never had to post on this thread of mine if you felt emotional mania was ensuing against you. You keep coming back and posting on it. Nobody is forcing you.

I never expected you to respond to me in such an irrational manner, which is why it comes as such a surprise to me. I don’t get any sense of mania, just an intense defensiveness against the idea of humble obedience to the Pope. The concept of recieving papal instruction with meekness really seems to set you off.

You keep trying to psychoanalyze me and Anna and anyone who differs in opinion from you Guanophore and that worries me a bit. You insist people are “assigning” you positions which boggles me.

I can only refer you to the list of samples above.

You have not just differed from my opinion. You assigned opinions to me that are yours, then differed from those!

I personally think your posts make little or no sense either just as you feel about mine so I would say the best route at this point is to ignore one another or just stop the conversation.

I am saddened to hear that you are unable to consider any of my real views, or allow your mind to reflect on another point of view, however, I understand that this might not be the right time in your life to be able to consider an alternative point of view. Sometimes there are reasons for clinging to our assumptions about people, even if they are not correct.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Ok, this is the last, repeat last, time I’m addressing this stuff. Some in here have chosen to put you on ignore. I haven’t. I have hoped you’d come around and let people like me who are honestly seeking the truth have some room to ask questions and not be accused of being psychotic, emotional trainwrecks with defensive projetionist fits of lunacy thrown in. But you have continued with this nonsense so I’m getting close to Anna’s ignore solution. This is the last response I will give because I’m tired of personal assassination. I prefer honest dialogue and intellectual discourse, not making things personal when we get frustrated and unable to answer questions.

What other cause would there be to assign beliefs and ideas to someone, then criticise them in the other person, when that person does not espouse those positions?

You’re right. I don’t make strawmen and I didn’t here. Nothing is “set off.” You don’t like that I disagree with your conclusions so I again have become “set off” as an unstable person.
You are not in the custom of using strawmen, so something else must have been set off inside.

**Nice, Guano. Real charitable. You’re essentially saying, “hey man, don’t be mad that I accuse you of irrational and ludicrous things. We all are lunatics once in a while like you were recently!” I don’t have a “stressor” here? And I’m not projecting. That’s invented in your mind. Since we’re in the midst of psychoanalysis a la Freud, perhaps you’re inventing a mental illness for your opponents out of a deep-seeded need to feel right all the time and cope with being wrong. See, doesn’t psychiatric evaluation on a forum sound crazy? **
Besides, it is not an insult to have projections. It is a normal defense function that people use every day. Just like the rest of them, their purpose is to help us cope with the daily stressors of life.

Plenty of people disagree with you and they have IM’d me about it!
No one has disagreed with me, Gurney. You have assigned positions to me that I do not hold, and you have disagreed with those.

I don’t think you are crazed or out of your mind, or even emotionally unstable. I think you have some emotional reasoning on this topic (as evidenced by your unreasonable assignment of positions to me that I do not hold) and emotional upset about what you call “blind obedience to the Pope”. I can understand why the subject is upsetting for you.

"This type of behavior?" LOL! Ok, this is getting squirrely! LOL I assure you, my axons and dendrites are just fine…
Yes, I agree that you are not the emotional type, which is why this type of behavior is very out of character with the rest of your posts. This is one of the main things that indicates a nerve has been struck.

Ah again with my imagination. Perhaps I should go into writing sci fi novels or something with all my hallucinagenic projection and fits of fantasy. At least I’m still young at heart. They say when you’ve lost your imagination you’re old. I guess I’m a youngster at heart still!
You seem to believe that there is a “position” that I cannot defend. On the contrary, I have not forwarded any “positions” on this thread. I have responded to you and Anna’s angst about LG. You have assigned positions to me that emanate from your own imagination. I have no defense for those.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**“some?” try “none.” I’m not irrational or emotional about this. I’m 100% clear-headed and academic and intellectual about it. If I were emotional, I’d be back in the Catholic Church right this second as I’m more emotionally drawn to Catholicism than anything else. **
Some irrational emotionalism will inevitable occur when discussing charged issues such as this.

**Again, irrational is your defense mechanism for frustration that your points aren’t landing. That’s fine. But neither Anna nor I have found your points compelling. Sorry. You’re intelligent and capable as an apologist but your points here aren’t convincing to us. If you want to think a disagreement is an irrational state, ok. Receiving papal instruction with meekness sets me off? Ay yay yay, that’s a lulu, Guano. You’ve got to be kidding me. As you have not bothered to get to know me, you would eat your words here pretty hard. I went years and years and years of following NFP, never missed a day of obligation, rosaries, adoration, benediction, indulgences, confession every two weeks, penances, prayer, you name it. Obedience is NOT my problem. I have my doubts about infallibility and the authority and exceptional jurisdiction the pope claims for himself. As an employee, a son, a husband, and person in general I KNOW how to obey and respect authority and friendship as well as chain of command. I grew up with an Army soldier for a dad, a Vietnam combat vet. I know obedience. I struggle with whether the pope has such authority. When and if I’m convinced he does have it, I’ll obey rigorously. **
I never expected you to respond to me in such an irrational manner, which is why it comes as such a surprise to me. I don’t get any sense of mania, just an intense defensiveness against the idea of humble obedience to the Pope. The concept of recieving papal instruction with meekness really seems to set you off.

Think about what you’re saying here. I’m UNABLE to consider. That’s insulting, pure and simple. You’re calling me a close-minded dullard. Insulting. I’m ABLE to many things, Guano. I cannot “allow my mind” to reflect. Again, you’re the contemplative, thoughtful, religious authority here and I am a stubborn goob who cannot digest and reflect out of pure will of my own. Nonsense. As far as me not wanting an “alternative point of view,” for goodness sakes, Guano, why do you think I created the thread??? As to what you think I’m clinging, to, God only knows…eesh
I am saddened to hear that you are unable to consider any of my real views, or allow your mind to reflect on another point of view, however, I understand that this might not be the right time in your life to be able to consider an alternative point of view. Sometimes there are reasons for clinging to our assumptions about people, even if they are not correct.

 

[rev_kevin]

Of course Christ is the Church. And of course He cannot err. But where is Christ in the world? Where are his sacraments, moral teachings definitely stated, his authority, his forgivenss made tangiable, and his theology? It doesn’t just come from the bible or a loud voice from heaven…

It comes through the Church. Christ cannot err but he has to go through men to work in our lives. He makes his truths manifest to us through men. He makes his will known through men. He forgives us through men. We are baptized, married, and confirmed through men. Likewise the sacraments of the Eucharist and confession come to us through men.

The Church is visible, tangiable, and real, not just an idea of a mental state with other believers. Historically we see this is true.

Just out of curiosity, have you read the early church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, Polycarp, the Didache, etc.? I think if you take the time to read these very, very early documents by men who were disciples of the original apostle JOHN!!, you’ll see that the early church was

Eucharistic
Liturgical
Episcopal in polity with bishops, priests, and deacons
Had a priesthood
Was sacrificial
Visible

You’ll also realize that the councils governed by bishops brought you the christological truths that we all consider “no-brainers” in this day and age—the Trinity, etc.

You’ll also see that the Latin West assembled the canon of Scripture and we have a debt of thanks to the Catholic Church for the bible. The Bible didn’t make the Church. The Church made the bible.

things I would consider…

Sure God works through men. He works through priests, ministers. and even through everyday people to get his message, the Good News out to the world. The true church is Christ and his church resides in all believers, Christ is within us, his church is within us. Remember our bodies are the temple of God.
No Christ made the Bible, remember its was written with the hand of God and the CC put what they wanted together to make what is today called the Bible. See the CC only put it together, God gave it to us.

Will consider, thanks.

 

[JohnnyReb]

**“some?” try “none.” I’m not irrational or emotional about this. I’m 100% clear-headed and academic and intellectual about it. If I were emotional, I’d be back in the Catholic Church right this second as I’m more emotionally drawn to Catholicism than anything else. **
Some irrational emotionalism will inevitable occur when discussing charged issues such as this.

**Again, irrational is your defense mechanism for frustration that your points aren’t landing. That’s fine. But neither Anna nor I have found your points compelling. Sorry. You’re intelligent and capable as an apologist but your points here aren’t convincing to us. If you want to think a disagreement is an irrational state, ok. Receiving papal instruction with meekness sets me off? Ay yay yay, that’s a lulu, Guano. You’ve got to be kidding me. As you have not bothered to get to know me, you would eat your words here pretty hard. I went years and years and years of following NFP, never missed a day of obligation, rosaries, adoration, benediction, indulgences, confession every two weeks, penances, prayer, you name it. Obedience is NOT my problem. I have my doubts about infallibility and the authority and exceptional jurisdiction the pope claims for himself. As an employee, a son, a husband, and person in general I KNOW how to obey and respect authority and friendship as well as chain of command. I grew up with an Army soldier for a dad, a Vietnam combat vet. I know obedience. I struggle with whether the pope has such authority. When and if I’m convinced he does have it, I’ll obey rigorously. **
I never expected you to respond to me in such an irrational manner, which is why it comes as such a surprise to me. I don’t get any sense of mania, just an intense defensiveness against the idea of humble obedience to the Pope. The concept of recieving papal instruction with meekness really seems to set you off.

Think about what you’re saying here. I’m UNABLE to consider. That’s insulting, pure and simple. You’re calling me a close-minded dullard. Insulting. I’m ABLE to many things, Guano. I cannot “allow my mind” to reflect. Again, you’re the contemplative, thoughtful, religious authority here and I am a stubborn goob who cannot digest and reflect out of pure will of my own. Nonsense. As far as me not wanting an “alternative point of view,” for goodness sakes, Guano, why do you think I created the thread??? As to what you think I’m clinging, to, God only knows…eesh
I am saddened to hear that you are unable to consider any of my real views, or allow your mind to reflect on another point of view, however, I understand that this might not be the right time in your life to be able to consider an alternative point of view. Sometimes there are reasons for clinging to our assumptions about people, even if they are not correct.

Gurney, I jumped in late here as I have been away busy with work and classes. Glad to be back. At the end of the day, this debate and personal insults, poisoning the well and ad hominems thrown at you and Anna is pure poppycock. It didn’t begin that way, as the question you asked was a very deep one and one that could produce meaningful dialogue. In the beginning it did.

People like you, Anna (and myself to an extent) are seeking answers. We have doubts and maybe some things that need to be clarified. Its not like we are calling the Pope the AntiChrist and Catholicism an AntiChrist Cult or anything (CARM, cough cough).

I too once was about never missing Mass, daily mass, reconcilation, all fasts observed to a perfect T, rosaries daily etc…I was a Catholic, Catholic. I thought I had alot of issues resolved, namely that Protestantism created alot of division, the Magisterium and the Church’s authority settled disputed petty issues, no more endless debates on Calvinism vs Arminianism, pretrib vs post trib etc…Never mind that many Roman doctrines and dogmas are just as divisive, and Rome plays just a big of role in creating division in Christianity as Protestantism does, points the fingers at Protestants for being guilty of “private interpretation” but then does the act same thing.

You have alot of respect for Catholicism, as do I. No need to be analysized for it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Kevin

True, Christ does dwell in all believers but the Church is a visible entity and it is sacramental, liturgical, historical, traditional, and priestly. Of course Scripture is God-breathed, straight from the Holy Spirit. No one is saying otherwise. But behold how God chose to canonize the Bible----through the Latin West, the Catholic Church. As you know, I’m a bit on the outs with Catholicism right now, struggling with this stuff, but I must be intellectually honest and give credit where it’s due. The Catholic Church was obviously God’s instrument for assembling these holy books and epistles. And ponder, what did the Church do for the first 60 plus years when NO Gospels were even in writing! Imagine how some churches in the early few centuries didn’t even have all the epistles or gospels at their parish sites! What did they do? Who told them how to live properly and preach the Word orally and inspired by the H.S.? Again, I would encourage you to read the ECF’s. Great stuff no matter what you decide.

Blessings to you, kevin!

Sure God works through men. He works through priests, ministers. and even through everyday people to get his message, the Good News out to the world. The true church is Christ and his church resides in all believers, Christ is within us, his church is within us. Remember our bodies are the temple of God.
No Christ made the Bible, remember its was written with the hand of God and the CC put what they wanted together to make what is today called the Bible. See the CC only put it together, God gave it to us.

Will consider, thanks.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Sure God works through men. He works through priests, ministers. and even through everyday people to get his message, the Good News out to the world. The true church is Christ and his church resides in all believers, Christ is within us, his church is within us. Remember our bodies are the temple of God.
No Christ made the Bible, remember its was written with the hand of God and the CC put what they wanted together to make what is today called the Bible. See the CC only put it together, God gave it to us.

Will consider, thanks.

The Bible was written by men, but they were guided by the Holy Spirit. What the men wrote in the Bible is a reflection of what early Christians believed, and stressed as important. Christ dwells in each of us,as does the Holy Spirit. It is even debated as to whether the RCC put the Bible together. If nothing else, I credit the Orthodox and Catholics for putting the Bible together, since it was canonized prior to the (not so) great schism. The Church did not act on its own authority because it was guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**Johnny, I appreciate deeply the support and your ability to see that I’m just a seeker like yourself, not a pot-stirring delusional crackpot out to trash people or the Church. There is some knee-jerk reactionary folk at times in CAF but my experience the vast majority are good people just out to defend the faith; most are pretty charitable and just want to clarify and aid the journey. Some get down right nasty and combative when they’re not making the case or feel unable to answer a question to the satisfaction of others.

I appreciate your support, kind words, and the fact that you and I have gone down similar roads is encouraging to me. It’s nice to know I’m not alone and have kindred spirits on here. CAF is a great forum full of many great posters. You’re one of them. blessings, friend!**

JohnnyReb:
Gurney, I jumped in late here as I have been away busy with work and classes. Glad to be back. At the end of the day, this debate and personal insults, poisoning the well and ad hominems thrown at you and Anna is pure poppycock. It didn’t begin that way, as the question you asked was a very deep one and one that could produce meaningful dialogue. In the beginning it did.

People like you, Anna (and myself to an extent) are seeking answers. We have doubts and maybe some things that need to be clarified. Its not like we are calling the Pope the AntiChrist and Catholicism an AntiChrist Cult or anything (CARM, cough cough).

I too once was about never missing Mass, daily mass, reconcilation, all fasts observed to a perfect T, rosaries daily etc…I was a Catholic, Catholic. I thought I had alot of issues resolved, namely that Protestantism created alot of division, the Magisterium and the Church’s authority settled disputed petty issues, no more endless debates on Calvinism vs Arminianism, pretrib vs post trib etc…Never mind that many Roman doctrines and dogmas are just as divisive, and Rome plays just a big of role in creating division in Christianity as Protestantism does, points the fingers at Protestants for being guilty of “private interpretation” but then does the act same thing.

You have alot of respect for Catholicism, as do I. No need to be analysized for it.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Hi Kevin

True, Christ does dwell in all believers but the Church is a visible entity and it is sacramental, liturgical, historical, traditional, and priestly. Of course Scripture is God-breathed, straight from the Holy Spirit. No one is saying otherwise. But behold how God chose to canonize the Bible----through the Latin West, the Catholic Church. As you know, I’m a bit on the outs with Catholicism right now, struggling with this stuff, but I must be intellectually honest and give credit where it’s due. The Catholic Church was obviously God’s instrument for assembling these holy books and epistles. And ponder, what did the Church do for the first 60 plus years when NO Gospels were even in writing! Imagine how some churches in the early few centuries didn’t even have all the epistles or gospels at their parish sites! What did they do? Who told them how to live properly and preach the Word orally and inspired by the H.S.? Again, I would encourage you to read the ECF’s. Great stuff no matter what you decide.

Blessings to you, kevin!

I would credit the Catholics and the Orthodox, but don’t disagree with much of what you said. I will say, they has the leadership of the Apostles who learned directly from Christ in person, and if you believe in source theory, they probably used precursors to the Gospel-documents such as Q (and others) that were latered used as sources when the Gospels were finally drafted.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Oh I give credit to all but I must be honest that it was the Latin West under Jerome and company at Carthage, etc. where they assembled the canon of Scripture. It was largely a Western undertaking and then approved by east and west together. It was a labor of love by the Catholics mostly.

I would credit the Catholics and the Orthodox, but don’t disagree with much of what you said. I will say, they has the leadership of the Apostles who learned directly from Christ in person, and if you believe in source theory, they probably used precursors to the Gospel-documents such as Q (and others) that were latered used as sources when the Gospels were finally drafted.

 

[rev_kevin]

Hi Kevin

True, Christ does dwell in all believers but the Church is a visible entity and it is sacramental, liturgical, historical, traditional, and priestly. Of course Scripture is God-breathed, straight from the Holy Spirit. No one is saying otherwise. But behold how God chose to canonize the Bible----through the Latin West, the Catholic Church. As you know, I’m a bit on the outs with Catholicism right now, struggling with this stuff, but I must be intellectually honest and give credit where it’s due. The Catholic Church was obviously God’s instrument for assembling these holy books and epistles. And ponder, what did the Church do for the first 60 plus years when NO Gospels were even in writing! Imagine how some churches in the early few centuries didn’t even have all the epistles or gospels at their parish sites! What did they do? Who told them how to live properly and preach the Word orally and inspired by the H.S.? Again, I would encourage you to read the ECF’s. Great stuff no matter what you decide.

Blessings to you, kevin!

Yes the CC put the Bible together, never said they didn’t but when they say they gave us the Bible I have to differ. God gave us the Bible through the CC. But I understand what you are saying.