Gospel of John and Confession

[jbelokur]

jbelokur,

I respect your point of view. But you didn’t answer my questions.

I’m not asking to be argumentative. I’m ask as one investing the Catholic faith.

Anna

Anna,
I guess I would need you to clarify and offer an example. Because what you have said is both broad and vague. Most likely the response I will give you is that Popes are not themselves infallible but rather have the gift of infallibility which is a negative gift, i.e. it enables them not to teach as dogmatic that what it contrary to the apostolic faith. Popes had children out of wedlock, they were gluttons, they were thieves at times and power hungry, but i am more than certain that you will come back empty handed when you look for a pope leading other to believe that something which is not the truth as dogmatic, or necessary for salvation.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But like Truman’s sign on his desk “the buck stops here,” the same is the Catholic rationale with Matthew 16:18. The papacy is the ultimate steward of anything conciliar in the past and can make or break doctrine. The papacy can declare anything infallible without a council or approval by anyone. It does’t just include the Holy Father, authority that is. Authority IS the papacy. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, which includes the episcopacy. But the episcopacy is subordinate to the papacy and the papcy has complete autonomy over them. So when the word magisterium is used, it’s a euphemism of sorts for the bishops’ opinions approved by the Pope. You are correct that the Church does have amazing depth. I can’t even crack open Aquinas’ Summa Theologica without scratching my head and feeling incredibly DUMB! That’s a humbling text to read for the novice such as yours truly!

You only assume that I was speaking of the pope when I was speaking of authority. The concept of the authority of the Church while it includes the Holy father, goes beyond that to include the entire magisterium as well, and the Tradition and Scriptural backing of the authority of the Church as Christ’s body can be clearly seen. You need to read my last post and note that I did not say it is just blind faith forever, but that not having a full understanding of all the doctrines of the Church is not a stumbling block to full communion. Once one is Catholic you have a life time to seek a fuller understanding of the length, width and amazing depth of the Church.

 

[cathdoki]

But like Truman’s sign on his desk “the buck stops here,” the same is the Catholic rationale with Matthew 16:18. The papacy is the ultimate steward of anything conciliar in the past and can make or break doctrine. The papacy can declare anything infallible without a council or approval by anyone. It does’t just include the Holy Father, authority that is. Authority IS the papacy. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, which includes the episcopacy. But the episcopacy is subordinate to the papacy and the papcy has complete autonomy over them. So when the word magisterium is used, it’s a euphemism of sorts for the bishops’ opinions approved by the Pope. You are correct that the Church does have amazing depth. I can’t even crack open Aquinas’ Summa Theologica without scratching my head and feeling incredibly DUMB! That’s a humbling text to read for the novice such as yours truly!

I agree with much of what you say but, if doctrine can be broken, then was it ever doctrine?

And BTW…I hope you and your family are feeling back in tip top shape after your bout with illness.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,
I guess I would need you to clarify and offer an example. Because what you have said is both broad and vague. Most likely the response I will give you is that Popes are not themselves infallible but rather have the gift of infallibility which is a negative gift, i.e. it enables them not to teach as dogmatic that what it contrary to the apostolic faith. Popes had children out of wedlock, they were gluttons, they were thieves at times and power hungry, but i am more than certain that you will come back empty handed when you look for a pope leading other to believe that something which is not the truth as dogmatic, or necessary for salvation.

jbelokur,

I will not insist that you answer my two questions. I just needed you to see that there are many questions and issues I need to sort through before I can embrace Catholicism.

About a week ago, I was at my wits end with the issues in the Episcopal Church, and I was about ready to run to the nearest Catholic Church. My life would be so much easier if I converted to Catholicism; but as Gurney pointed out, running from something is not the right reason to convert.

Anna

 

[jbelokur]

jbelokur,

I will not insist that you answer my two questions. I just needed you to see that there are many questions and issues I need to sort through before I can embrace Catholicism.

About a week ago, I was at my wits end with the issues in the Episcopal Church, and I was about ready to run to the nearest Catholic Church. My life would be so much easier if I converted to Catholicism; but as Gurney pointed out, running from something is not the right reason to convert.

Anna

Anna,
You asked me why I didn’t answer your question, and I answered it as best I could. You see I take questions like the one you posed to me personally , because behind them they supposedly carry with them the threat of exposing the Catholic Church for one of the many numerous “errors” it teaches. But every time these vague generalistic accusations are groundless. So, please, offer us up one of the times one of the popes led people to believe that which was false as dogmatic truth.

 

[jbelokur]

Anna,
I just wanted to add that I’m not mad, but I do take questions like the ones you posed seriously. They are just unanswerable and groundlessly threatening in my past experience.

josh

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Cathodoki,

Great to hear from you. Your prayers are MUCH-appreciated. My daughter and I are indeed fine and 100% typhoid-free. That was a bizarre experience. Let’s just say I’m not going back to the Philippines for the foreseeable future…typhoid and inlaws…what a recipe for a headache! LOL

I’m not sure what you mean about doctrine being broken. I never made any reference to broken doctrine, did I? Please clarify.

Thanks again for your prayers and sincere wishes for us; those prayers meant a lot!!

I agree with much of what you say but, if doctrine can be broken, then was it ever doctrine?

And BTW…I hope you and your family are feeling back in tip top shape after your bout with illness.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Not to be a horninsky here, but jbelokur, I’m really trying to understand why you see Anna’s questions as threatening and unanswerable? I thought they were basically easy questions? We are talking about post #56, right? I’m trying to understand why you took offense to her asking them?

God bless

Anna,
I just wanted to add that I’m not mad, but I do take questions like the ones you posed seriously. They are just unanswerable and groundlessly threatening in my past experience.

josh

 

[Soldier_X]

Like I said, it’s complicated.

Anna

Yes it is.

 

[Soldier_X]

I’m not asking to be argumentative. I’m ask as one investing the Catholic faith.

Anna

Indeed you are, and some of us are thankful for it; for those questions are also on my mind. Even having been Anglican/Episcopalian for several years, I still have the inevitable nagging concerns and questions on nights when I’m home alone and pondering the Way, or when reading the Scriptures and the Fathers. But it is not always as easy to jump ship and join the Catholic church as some non-Anglicans might think. For people on our side of the Anglican divide, there’s a “I have to be sure” factor always in play. Your questions are certainly appropriate, because we think we’re right (or right enough) and don’t want to abandon what we love for something uncertain. We believe (or have convinced ourselves) that our Communion possesses that which a Church must possess. Speaking for myself, it is easy to see our failings and Catholic failings and think “why leave?”, where Catholics might see our failings vs. their firm foundation of Truth and strong leadership. And yet, I also have a sense that our failings are due to shaky, increasingly radical theology…and any failings of Catholics are due to the fact that Her members (like all of us) are sinners. The flaws are not in the Catholic Church itself but in individuals…are our flaws both in the Communion *and *in ourselves?

 

[jbelokur]

Okay, let me revisit these two questions:

Question 1:If you look back through history, do you see times when Catholics followed their Popes into very fallible actions and very fallible beliefs?

*If by “fallible beliefs” you mean dogma, I would say absolutely no! Will I admit that some popes have not been faithful to the teachings of the Church and some have been led astray because of it, I would say yes. But being perfect isn’t what the Church teaches infallible means, it means not teaching the Church something that is false as necessary for salvation. *

How far would you follow the Pope today? These are important questions, when I consider Catholicism.

• As a Catholic I believe that the pope is guarded from teaching things contrary to the truth which has been passed down throughout history from Christ Himself. That being said, Yes, I will continue to believe anything the Church defines as dogmatic, because I know that it will be consistent with Tradition and Scripture. I’m sitting here trying to think of hypothetical situation but that is just ridiculous. *

Please tell me if you find that I have answered these two questions in a satisfactory way.

But in my defense, you can see how both of these questions assume that a)the pope has done what you claim in the past, and that b) as a Catholic I would have to follow the pope when sometime in the future he might march us right into the gates of hell, because if the pope says it I believe it, right. Even though this wont ever be the case. Hypothetical questions based on impossible circumstances from my perspective are set ups.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As a Catholic for years I defended Honorius’ acceptance of monothelitism because he never taught it ex cathedra, but if you look at how he was condemned as a heretic by a council and future popes condemned him as well, it gives one pause! Honorius is the best example of a pope teaching junk theology…

Okay, let me revisit these two questions:

Question 1:If you look back through history, do you see times when Catholics followed their Popes into very fallible actions and very fallible beliefs?

*If by “fallible beliefs” you mean dogma, I would say absolutely no! Will I admit that some popes have not been faithful to the teachings of the Church and some have been led astray because of it, I would say yes. But being perfect isn’t what the Church teaches infallible means, it means not teaching the Church something that is false as necessary for salvation. *

How far would you follow the Pope today? These are important questions, when I consider Catholicism.

• As a Catholic I believe that the pope is guarded from teaching things contrary to the truth which has been passed down throughout history from Christ Himself. That being said, Yes, I will continue to believe anything the Church defines as dogmatic, because I know that it will be consistent with Tradition and Scripture. I’m sitting here trying to think of hypothetical situation but that is just ridiculous. *

Please tell me if you find that I have answered these two questions in a satisfactory way.

But in my defense, you can see how both of these questions assume that a)the pope has done what you claim in the past, and that b) as a Catholic I would have to follow the pope when sometime in the future he might march us right into the gates of hell, because if the pope says it I believe it, right. Even though this wont ever be the case. Hypothetical questions based on impossible circumstances from my perspective are set ups.

 

[jbelokur]

As a Catholic for years I defended Honorius’ acceptance of monothelitism because he never taught it ex cathedra, but if you look at how he was condemned as a heretic by a council and future popes condemned him as well, it gives one pause! Honorius is the best example of a pope teaching junk theology…

The question is, did Pope Honorius teach monothelitism as something that the whole Church is to accept as dogmatic teaching or did he believe it is true? If it is the later, which it is, then the negative gifting of infallibility worked as it always has, the Holy Spirit kept Pope Honorius from teach infallibly monothelitism as dogma.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As I stated, that was my argument in the past as well as an apologist for Catholicism. Pope Leo II said this, ***“and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”. *** Some view this as ex cathedra, allowing pollution into church teaching…He explicitely wrote his heretical views in letters to other clergy, was excommunictated as a heretic. Not good…

The question is, did Pope Honorius teach monothelitism as something that the whole Church is to accept as dogmatic teaching or did he believe it is true? If it is the later, which it is, then the negative gifting of infallibility worked as it always has, the Holy Spirit kept Pope Honorius from teach infallibly monothelitism as dogma.

 

[jbelokur]

As I stated, that was my argument in the past as well as an apologist for Catholicism. Pope Leo II said this, ***“and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”. *** Some view this as ex cathedra, allowing pollution into church teaching…He explicitely wrote his heretical views in letters to other clergy, was excommunictated as a heretic. Not good…

You know unfaithful Catholics do things everyday that people I work with, my family, etc. ask me to explain why they are doing what they are doing or have done what they’ve done, it sucks, but their actions which are contrary to truth do not take away form the reality of that truth. This is just another example. As you and I agree, Honorius witness is Judas like, but does his witness contradict the doctrine of papal infallibility? I don’t believe so.

May I ask, in what medium you were a Catholic apologist? And I’m fairly sure Tim doesn’t want your worship, so what faith do you profess?

 

[SirThomasMore]

For those that hold to the belief that when Jesus gives the power to forgive sins to the Apostles, and this authority expires with the death of the Apostles, something occurred to me I thought may be troublesome to this line of thinking.

With the Gospel of John, when it was being written by the Apostle John, he was the last, or one of the last depending on when you believe it was written, Apostle(s) left. Now the line in question is

20:23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

And just a few short verses later, he says:

20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.

And then concludes the Gospel in the next chapter with this:

21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

Twice he states that not everything that Jesus did would be able to be written down, but he takes time to specifically state that the Apostles were given this authority. Why? He is writing this Gospel down late in life, as the only Apostle left. Why would he bother inserting this in there if the authority was to end with his death? Wouldn’t the space for writing this down been better served to write down something that would be a permanent teaching of the Church? It is not like his authority was questioned. In fact, the verse:

*21:24 It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.
*
refutes this thinking because his authority is the basis for believing the Gospel.

So why write down something that will end in a few years with his death? The other Gospels covered this issue and the teaching if it were to only apply to the age of the Apostles. The only other reason I could come up with is to posit that he wrote unessential material in the Gospel. But this brings up many more issues and is heretical as well.

Your thoughts?

it makes no sense at all that Jesus would not have planned for things to continue after the deaths of His Apostles…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I meant apologist in the ordinary everyday sense just as you are a humble lay apologist for the Catholic faith. I never meant to imply I was an apologist in the official or professional capacity. Apologies if I gave that impression. I’ve been in between Anglicanism and Catholicism for a while now. God bless.

You know unfaithful Catholics do things everyday that people I work with, my family, etc. ask me to explain why they are doing what they are doing or have done what they’ve done, it sucks, but their actions which are contrary to truth do not take away form the reality of that truth. This is just another example. As you and I agree, Honorius witness is Judas like, but does his witness contradict the doctrine of papal infallibility? I don’t believe so.

May I ask, in what medium you were a Catholic apologist? And I’m fairly sure Tim doesn’t want your worship, so what faith do you profess?

 

[jbelokur]

I meant apologist in the ordinary everyday sense just as you are a humble lay apologist for the Catholic faith. I never meant to imply I was an apologist in the official or professional capacity. Apologies if I gave that impression. I’ve been in between Anglicanism and Catholicism for a while now. God bless.

God bless you as well.