Infallibility of Church?

[Glenn]

Calvin wrote, " our nature is not only destitute of all good, but is so fertile in all evils that it cannot remain inactive. Those who have called it concupiscence have used an expression not improper, if it were only added, which is far from being conceded by most persons, that everything in man, the understanding and will, the soul and body, is polluted and engrossed by this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that man is of himself nothing else but concupiscence."

That says that there is no such thing possible as to will the good. We’re “destitute of all good”, and are “nothing else but concupiscence.” I don’t think it runs counter to that thought to assert that he’s saying that our will is unable to will God’s grace.

Yes, he would say that our will is unable to will God’s grace, so God’s grace is required to change our will. He is talking about the unredeemed nature of man. God’s grace, however, is able to change our nature (we are new creations in Christ), so that our whole disposition—mind, heart, and will–are reoriented toward God.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

There was no “bible” as we know it for almost 400 years.

Actually, most of the books of the NT (the OT canon had already been established) had been written and were in wide circulation around the Mediterranean world by 60-70 AD, and all were completed and in circulation by the end of the first century. The official Christian Canon, however, was determined later, but it was established from among the works that by virtue of their apostolic origin and extensive use were already considered authoritative by Christians.

Check this out https://www.catholic.com/canon-of-scripture

 

[Glenn]

This has been a great discussion–to much to absorb and digest in a short period of time. But I have a confession to make. I am actually a Protestant revert. I grew up as a Protestant. Then, a number of years ago, I starting re-reading CS Lewis’ works. He got me interested in Chesterton. From there, I read Aquinas, Augustine, the Church Fathers, the Spanish mystics, and other more recent Catholic theologians. After two consecutive years in RCIA, I decided to join the Catholic Church. Things were going well for awhile, and then I encountered some teachings that, to be honest, scared me–things like Mary as Co-Redemptrix–which undermined my understanding of the uniqueness of Christ’s atonement–and the whole system of indulgences and holy days of “obligation”–both of which ran counter to my understanding of Christian liberty, that is, of obedience through love rather than legal obligation. I talked with others in the church about my doubts and struggles. Some responded in love, other in anger. One individual implied that since I was now part of the Catholic Church, if I turned away, it would be mortal sin. Wow! At that point, I thought it would have been better for me had I never joined the Catholic church. I ended up with much greater confusion at the end of my search than I started with. To say the least, my search still continues, but currently within Protestant communions. I find that I am unable to resolve who is right on various issue. Again, you cannot simply turn on belief, so I go to the Scripture, my only seemingly reliable source of authority.

 

[bpari7]

The CC teaches the infallable truth. This is reflected in Her doctrines thru the Extraordinary Magisterium teachings and from Papal “ex cathedra” statements regarding faith and morals (ex., the Assumption and IC of Mary). However, there is also the “discipline” which is up to individual person to believe or follow. The goal of the church’s discipline is to protect a catholic from committing a sin (Mat 15:18-20) A good example of this is; whether or not to believe in Mother Mary’s apparition is up to our own private conviction. It is therefore important that we distinguish between the Church’s discipline and doctrine in order not to be apostatized from the CC. Unfortunately, most non-catholic does not recognize these two when making anti-church statements, do you?

 

[bpari7]

“The ‘co-’ prefix in co-Redemptrix refers to Mary’s cooperation with us; it does not mean that Mary is co-Redeemer, not even with and under Christ. (The “co-” prefix should not be capitalized, since it refers to our mere human efforts towards our salvation; the “R” in co-Redemptrix should be capitalized since it refers to Divine efforts towards our salvation.)” - Ronald Conte, ronconte153@catholicplanet.com

 

[steve-b]

I have a confession to make. After two consecutive years in RCIA, I decided to join the Catholic Church. Things were going well for awhile, and then I encountered some teachings that, to be honest, scared me–things like Mary as Co-Redemptrix–which undermined my understanding of the uniqueness of Christ’s atonement

Glenn,

Nothing is undermined. The problem is, misunderstandings abound.

Re: Co-redemptrix

Excerpt

“Mary’s fiat (Latin for “let it be done”) signals that she was free in her response to the angel. The implications of this are staggering: when Mary said “let it be,” she gave God free rein to come into the world and save us. This is a textbook definition of Mary as co-redemptrix . She cooperated with God’s grace in the redemption of the whole world.”
FROM HERE

Glenn:

and the whole system of indulgences and holy days of “obligation”–both of which ran counter to my understanding of Christian liberty, that is, of obedience through love rather than legal obligation. To say the least, my search still continues, but currently within Protestant communions. I find that I am unable to resolve who is right on various issue. Again, you cannot simply turn on belief, so I go to the Scripture, my only seemingly reliable source of authority.

Re: the issue of Indulgences I hope that helped

AND

Holy Days of obligation.

due to space I need to continue on another post

 

[steve-b]

holy days of "obligation" ran counter to my understanding of Christian liberty, that is, of obedience through love rather than legal obligation.

Re: Holy Days of obligation

(Cont)

Example: Sunday Mass obligation

Heb 10: (all emphasis mine)

19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water (I.E. Baptism) . 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. ( I.E. meet for Mass) 26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries (that describes mortal sin) 28 A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant (sacrifice for sin and blood of the covenant = words Jesus used instituting the Eucharist) by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

When they meet, They are offering the “sacrifice for sin”, and; “blood of the covenant” = the words Our Lord spoke instituting the Eucharist Matthew 26:28 AND Mark 14:24
They are celebrating the Mass, the Eucharist

AND
those who deliberately fail to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday after being given the knowledge of truth, there no longer remains, a sacrifice for sin and blood of the covenant for THEM but a fearful prospect of judgement awaits Them and a fury of fire will consume these adversaries ◦ They Spurn the Son of God they outrage the spirit of grace

Does that sound like
A minor sin or a mortal sin, to deliberately miss Mass on Sunday.
A suggestion or an obligation to attend Sunday Mass

 

[mcq72]

What article (reference please) can you show where the Catholic Church raised reading the bible as equal to receiving the Eucharist.

ok, post 134, next to post of cardinal Dulles I think…from Ch 6 of “summary” of DV

 

[mcq72]

For clarity, we’re really saying in short,

1. the Catholic Church wrote the NT. That’s because the Catholic Church was here before a single word of the NT was written. There was no “bible” as we know it for almost 400 years. Do you understand that point? All the writings of the NT came long AFTER the Church was established… IOW, ALL writers of the NT were already in the Church they were writing to and for . As in they are Catholic in the Catholic Church.
2. The Catholic Church then in time, collected, named, and canonized, only those writings that she considered Divinely Inspired. That includes the OT books as well. As in 73 books in the canon of scripture

yes understood…was gonna say that although VatII DV never mentioned it as a “Catholic book”, they would certainly not deny that it somewhat is. For some reason they chose to refer to it as God’s gift , etc, probably for ecumenical reasons, not to offend those “other churches” not in full communion, who are finally mentioned in a positive light in a church document. No one is saying it is a Buddhist book.
All a matter of tact, or focus (God’s role, not “ours”) on this point. The church is given plenty of credit or authority in the reception and administration of said written Word in DV.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

What article (reference please) can you show where the Catholic Church raised reading the bible as equal to receiving the Eucharist.

ok, post 134, next to post of cardinal Dulles I think.…from Ch 6 of “summary” of DV

This post? HERE

I ask because the numbering of posts seems to reflect multiple posts have been removed from the thread

 

[mcq72]

“The ‘co-’ prefix in co-Redemptrix refers to Mary’s cooperation with us; it does not mean that Mary is co-Redeemer, not even with and under Christ. (The “co-” prefix should not be capitalized, since it refers to our mere human efforts towards our salvation; the “R” in co-Redemptrix should be capitalized since it refers to Divine efforts towards our salvation.)” - Ronald Conte, ronconte153@catholicplanet.com

Thank you.

I understand that there is an effort to get pope to declare a third revelation or “settlement” on this redemptrix matter, similar to previous pronouncements(IC and Assumption). Right now not formerly recognized though they tried at Vat.II

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/could-mary-be-getting-a-new-title-this-year-44675

 

[mcq72]

yes that is it…poor intro on my part…not even quotes …sorry

 

[mcq72]

wasn’t the requirement much more lax pre reform days, that the requirement for communion was but once a year…not sure Mass was required weekly or when that began.

 

[Glenn]

Re: Co-redemptrix

Re: the issue of Indulgences

The articles were good. Thanks. The one about Mary as co-Redemptrix made the most sense to me. I still have difficulty with the whole idea of indulgences. And in regard to days of obligation, I think there are times when God may want me to be alone with him. Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness. Paul spent years three years in Arabia ( possibly in the desert), before returning to Damascus. Yes, we are not to neglect meeting together to encourage one another. But I see this as a general principle to be exercised in good conscience before God, and not rigid obligation.

 

[mcq72]

As a side note, some say Eusebius made 50 bibles for Constantine around 325 or 350 AD. It is thought that the vatican still has one of these copies. Eusebius did use the criteria you mentioned. There was church consensus already, way before a council declared canon at end of same century.

I believe the church was very Jewish in this regard, of holding sacred regard for the writings, reading them at "meetings’, copying them , and not needing a council type decree to reach consensus, using the writings right away. Having said that , the church has kept good record of dialogue dealing with validity of each book, that they were two or three groupings of acceptability. The early church used these , Eusebius used these, as did church councils , and Jerome and Luther and anyone involved in canon research.

 

[steve-b]

wasn’t the requirement much more lax pre reform days, that the requirement for communion was but once a year…not sure Mass was required weekly or when that began.

1. The purpose of quoting Hebrews, is to show where the weekly obligation comes from for Sunday Mass
2. When Hebrews says “The Day” = the Lord’s Day, the Day Jesus resurrected, …Sunday.
3. Those who fail to meet, (go faithfully to mass on Sunday) Hebrews shows, they commit mortal sin

From the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church)
2178 This practice of the Christian assembly dates from the beginnings of the apostolic age. The Letter to the Hebrews reminds the faithful “not to neglect to meet together, as is the habit of some, but to encourage one another.”
Tradition preserves the memory of an ever-timely exhortation: Come to Church early, approach the Lord, and confess your sins, repent in prayer. . . . Be present at the sacred and divine liturgy, conclude its prayer and do not leave before the dismissal. . . . We have often said: “This day is given to you for prayer and rest. This is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.”

I would just add

Jesus told His disciples and in extension to EVERYONE

Jn 6: 52-56
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. "

Now look again at the consequences mentioned in Hebrews 10 for those who blow off Mass on Sunday

 

[mcq72]

yes but what good is requiring the mass if it is not required to participate in the Eucharist but yearly ? Again, what is the history here ?

 

[mcq72]

first time I have heard of “doctrine of discovery”…is that a misnomer , a “doctrine” ?

Loading…

sojo.net

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Re: Co-redemptrix

Re: the issue of Indulgences

The articles were good. Thanks.

As you might know, the resources available today for one who’s interested, is HUGE

Glenn:

The one about Mary as co-Redemptrix made the most sense to me.

Good

Glenn:

I still have difficulty with the whole idea of indulgences.

Where’s the hang up?

Glenn:

And in regard to days of obligation, I think there are times when God may want me to be alone with him. Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness. Paul spent years three years in Arabia ( possibly in the desert), before returning to Damascus. Yes, we are not to neglect meeting together to encourage one another. But I see this as a general principle to be exercised in good conscience before God, and not rigid obligation.

Does the following sound like a general principle, or an obligation?

Jn 6: 52-56
“ Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. "

Now look again at the consequences mentioned in Hebrews 10 for those who blow off Mass on Sunday

As I see Jesus statement, stressing Truly Truly UNLESS YOU DO THIS …

As in, do this or else…all the bad stuff mentioned will happen

All I can say, As for me, I’m not going to go against that.

 

[steve-b]

yes but what good is requiring the mass if it is not required to participate in the Eucharist but yearly ? Again, what is the history here ?

Re: the Mass

even if one doesn’t take the Eucharist, they participate in the other ways in the sacrifice of the Mass, which is ALSO required on Sunday, as was shown from scripture…