Infallibility of Church?

[mcq72]

" This [frequent Communion] in [truth] is the shortest way to secure the [salvation] of every individual man as well as that of society."…Catholic Encyclopedia: Frequent Communion

 

[mcq72]

Trent:

“Let not the faithful deem it enough to receive the Body of the Lord once a year only; but let them judge that Communion ought to be more frequent; but whether it be more expedient that it should be monthly, weekly, or daily, can be decided by no fixed universal rule”

I believe the required frequency mirrored the desired frequency for Mass. Of course it is possible to do one without the other, but the understanding seemed obviously in favor to do both, and Trent said so; " The [Council of Trent]expressed a wish “that at each Mass the faithful who are present, should communicate”.

So to me it would seem that requirement for eucharist was equal to requirement for Mass, at least in the past, and a fluctuating past, from daily to weekly to yearly or 4 times yearly to above Trent decree, to weekly if not daily (1905).

 

[Gorgias]

did Trent admit to two countries, even “related” countries, as Vat II does ?

Not sure what you mean by this…

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

Right, but we were quibbling about the language of one of the canons of Trent. Your claim was that the canons don’t represent Protestant belief, which – you asserted – meant that Trent was really ‘tilting at windmills’ to a certain extent (which implied, you stated, that Trent wasn’t speaking truth (infallible or not!)). You pointed to two canons in particular, and asserted that no Protestant believes what Trent asserts they do.

So… we’ve just agreed that Calvin did believe what Trent condemned. Which means, as it were, there’s no ‘tilting at windmills’ by Trent.

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–

I hope that the concept was explained to you properly, rather than you just running across the term and saying “whaaaaa?!?” It can be jarring, especially if it’s just thrown out there at you…

and the whole system of indulgences

Christ wishes the merit of His passion, death and resurrection to be applied to His people. How’s that counter to an understanding of Christian faith?

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.

Umm… Jesus believed in “holy days of obligation” – we see him making the trip to Jerusalem for many of them!

 

[mcq72]

we see him making the trip to Jerusalem for many of them!

Yes, but we are not sure He participated in them unless that it would say so, specifically, such as the “last supper”. He did go to Jerusalem during festivities many times as you say, but let us not assume it was always to participate but for sure always seeking an opportunity to minister, going with the flow of the people so to speak.

 

[mcq72]

Christ wishes the merit of His passion, death and resurrection to be applied to His people. How’s that counter to an understanding of Christian faith?

It can challenge the teaching that His graces of salvation are a free gift, this teaching of meriting them .

I know the teachings would deny any conflict but still not as simple as the original teaching of free gift.

 

[mcq72]

Not sure what you mean by this…

I was using your analogy of LG/ Vat II and two countries (Catholics becoming x as one country, and non Catholic Christians as the other country). So now did Trent address those two countries as Vat II ? Did it have a positive light to non Catholic Christians (Orthodox and a few small groups not Catholic but not part of reformation, existing way before it), even Eastern rite Catholics ?

 

[steve-b]

" This [frequent Communion] in [truth] is the shortest way to secure the [salvation] of every individual man as well as that of society."…Catholic Encyclopedia: Frequent Communion

You did your homework

 

[steve-b]

Trent:

“Let not the faithful deem it enough to receive the Body of the Lord once a year only; but let them judge that Communion ought to be more frequent; but whether it be more expedient that it should be monthly, weekly, or daily, can be decided by no fixed universal rule”

I believe the required frequency mirrored the desired frequency for Mass. Of course it is possible to do one without the other, but the understanding seemed obviously in favor to do both, and Trent said so; " The [Council of Trent]expressed a wish “that at each Mass the faithful who are present, should communicate”.

So to me it would seem that requirement for eucharist was equal to requirement for Mass, at least in the past, and a fluctuating past, from daily to weekly to yearly or 4 times yearly to above Trent decree, to weekly if not daily (1905).

Again, You did your homework

AND

We know that once a person becomes knowledge of the truth and deliberately misses mass on Sunday , it is grave (mortal) sin, as scripture notes (Heb 10 that was quoted)

AND

the CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 2181

 

[goout]

goout:

That’s a different thing. That’s backpedalling on errors.

No, but they (JW’s) gloss over any perceived error or back peddling by citing being in better light, better understanding now.

"The road the righteous travel is like the sunrise, getting brighter and brighter until daylight has come.:…Proverb 4:18

So yes, I may be thankful for any “better understanding” of “separated brethren” Vat II has over Trent, but I also see “infalibility” as a boundary to be tapped danced around by CC for any further better understanding, as this one was/is.

Please do some reading on what in infallibility is and what it is not.
If you do not grow in understanding of anything you are dead. And that includes your faith life, or the life of your church.

The JW’s might change doctrines, that doesn’t mean any of it has Catholic Truth. We are not relativists.

 

[Glenn]

Where’s the hang up?

I still have difficulty with the whole idea of indulgences.

I guess it is the whole idea of the Church dispensing merits. But I think I understand the point of the article. Is it correct to say that an indulgence does not have to do with one’s salvation, but only with temporal benefits? I see the point about God lessening the punishment of Solomon, based upon the righteousness of his father David. And Scripture often shows God looking back to the faithfulness of Abraham and the patriarchs in his own continued faithfulness to their descendants. So it does make sense. And we also see where Paul speaks of his filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of the Church.

So there is definite logic and scriptural support for the idea of indulgences. And I think if not handled mechanically, but with a deep yearning of one’s heart for the welfare of another, then it seems like it could be a good thing. It seems like indulgences are in one sense like offering up our own pain and suffering, like Jesus, like the apostle Paul, on behalf of a loved one. But can’t we also pour out our heart directly to God on behalf of our friends and neighbors and relatives?

Indulgences are just something that I’m not used to, and since I was taught that all merit belongs to Christ, it is difficult for me to think about myself or someone else, other than Christ, possessing sufficient any merit that would deserve heaven. But again, indulgences appear to be not for that purpose, but simply for temporal benefits.

Am I getting a good sense of what indulgences are for?

 

[Glenn]

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

Yes, to simply “blow off” Mass would be a serious sin. What would be considered legitimate reasons for missing Mass?

 

[fhansen]

You can’t believe what you don’t believe. The Church actually teaches that we’re never to go against our own consciences in fact. But we should definitely be agreement on essentials, with some truths being more foundational and pertinent than others. And in any case we must, if we’re to be solid members of the Church, at least give her the benefit of the doubt on all of her teachings, and seek understanding regarding them.

 

[mcq72]

The JW’s might change doctrines, that doesn’t mean any of it has Catholic Truth. We are not relativists.

Don"t think JW’s changed doctrine either, but a better understanding does move the markers on some things.

I feel the same situation applies to CC at Trent then Vat II with regards to separated brethren, no change in doctrine, but it seems the markers are moved. The aspect of infallibility is an indirect one, that any future better understanding can not seem to change a doctrine, that an infallible understanding can not change in CC.

So Vat II in the spirit of ecumenicalism said their is spiritual life outside CC (Protestant and Orthodox Churches), but I feel in spirit of sectarianism and infallibility ( no doctrine can change) also said that spiritual life in those other churches is not independent from CC, maintaining the old hard core doctrine that " outside the Catholic church there is no salvation."

Doctrine did not change, but a marker sure seemed to have been moved. The CC is not free to do anything but that due to her conviction of her infallibility. But to be fair the Orthodox and Protestant likewise due to their conscience and convictions though none of them stemming from stated infallibility. Again talking in terms of unification.

 

[Paytheon]

That is not what “Protestants” say alone…it’s what all Christians read in the Gospel. How is it the Catholic church is filled with so many people like you who put your selfish pride and status ahead of the Gospel then throw your denominational hate in the mix to cloud up a position you not only can’t defend…but did not defend!

 

[Gorgias]

He did go to Jerusalem during festivities many times as you say, but let us not assume it was always to participate

Wait – you’re saying that an observant Jew, required by Mosaic law to go to Jerusalem for the various feasts, would go to Jerusalem and not participate in the ceremonies? That’s hardly believable.

Anyway, we see him participating in the rituals of the various feasts – Passover and Tabernacles, for two. And Scripture says so.

It can challenge the teaching that His graces of salvation are a free gift, this teaching of meriting them .

An indulgence isn’t merited. It is given freely.

 

[MT1926]

Am I getting a good sense of what indulgences are for?

I gotta say I think you have a better grasp on it than many Catholics I know.

Keep digging. From what I read in your response the only thing that seems to be standing in your way on indulgences is what you were taught.

I just wanted to point out that Catholics agree that all merit belongs to Christ. However, we believe God rewards us (merit) when we cooperate with Him and perform acts which please Him, which He has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10).

Here’s a few paragraphs from the Catechism that might help.

[2006] The term “merit” refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.

[2007] With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

[2008] The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace . The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

[2009] Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."60 The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.61 "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts."62

[2010] Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

[2011] The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

God Bless

 

[goout]

I’m really not sure how to respond to this because you’re misunderstanding some basic things about the Catholic Church.
This for instance:

Doctrine did not change, but a marker sure seemed to have been moved. The CC is not free to do anything but that due to her conviction of her infallibility.

I’m not sure what you mean by “marker”.
I assume you are a Trinitarian?
The formulation of the Trinity developed over time within the Church. It’s not explicit in the Tradition or Scripture of the Church from the beginning. The seeds are there, not the fullness of expression. That’s not “moving a marker” it’s simply the community coming to understand what is revealed more fully.

If you examine this with an open heart, it becomes apparent that development of understanding and development of doctrinal formulations is intrinsic to the life of the Church, and to the life of any Christian for that matter.
If you are not moving forward, you are dead. The word “repentance” expresses this, literally “change the way you think”. Repentance is not a one-time thing. Conversion is not a one-time thing.
The Christian life is ongoing in the Church and in the heart and mind of believers. This is what a living faith is.

The Church does not pursue infallibility as an end as you are suggesting.
People get way bent out of shape of this word without understanding how we use it.

 

[mcq72]

Wait – you’re saying that an observant Jew, required by Mosaic law to go to Jerusalem for the various feasts, would go to Jerusalem and not participate in the ceremonies? That’s hardly believable.

I did not say that. I said be careful not to presume what a Jew would consider a lawful feast. He did everything “lawful”, including what was a lawful feast observance. Do you assume that Israel only did lawful things , and had no man made traditions, even feasts ?

 

[Gorgias]

I did not say that. I said be careful not to presume what a Jew would consider a lawful feast.

Umm… you didn’t?

He did go to Jerusalem during festivities many times as you say, but let us not assume it was always to participate

Uhh… ok. If you say so.

 

[mcq72]

An indulgence isn’t merited . It is given freely.

Correct , only after a righteous, graced work