Infallibility of Church?

[Glenn]

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

[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

[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.

Really good. I don’t see how any Protestant could disagree with these statements and the others that you mentioned from the Catechism. The merits of Christ become ours, according to the pure grace of filial adoption, which makes us partakers of the divine nature. Wow!

A lot of my questions are being answered. My I ask another questions? When the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ, how do we understand this in light of the fact that Christ has a new and glorified body? His body was given and his blood was shed when he was here in his mortal flesh. So what are we partaking? Is it his immortal body and blood? How are we to think about Corpus Christi?

 

[Gorgias]

Correct , only after a righteous, graced work

Right. No merit accrues to the person by virtue of the work, since it came to be by virtue of God’s grace. However, God freely imputes merit to the person on His own gracious initiative.

 

[MT1926]

So what are we partaking? Is it his immortal body and blood?

This isn’t an in depth answer but I think it is a good start to your question

https://www.catholic.com/index.php/qa/where-does-the-bible-say-soul-and-divinity

How are we to think about Corpus Christi?

Not sure what you mean by this?

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

When the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ, how do we understand this in light of the fact that Christ has a new and glorified body? His body was given and his blood was shed when he was here in his mortal flesh. So what are we partaking? Is it his immortal body and blood? How are we to think about Corpus Christi?

This isn’t an in depth answer but I think it is a good start to your question

Yes, this statement from the article you suggested answered my question: “The Eucharist is not the dead flesh of Christ. It is his living and glorified body.”

In regard to Corpus Christi, are Catholics required to believe in the Eucharistic miracle of a bleeding, consecrated host at Bolsena?

 

[Gorgias]

In regard to Corpus Christi, are Catholics required to believe in the Eucharistic miracle of a bleeding, consecrated host at Bolsena?

‘Corpus Christi’ is the name of one of the feast days of the Church, in which we celebrate the gift of the “Body and Blood of Christ” of the Eucharist. (That’s probably why you got the confused response.)

With respect to Eucharistic miracles, the answer is ‘no’ – there’s no requirement, per se, to believe in them as such. Members of the Church (including priests or bishops) might offer their assertion that they’re true miracles, but that doesn’t create an doctrinal obligation to believe in any particular instance.

 

[mcq72]

Yes but after the work.

Look, I believe in a lot of theology that can be the basis for indulgences, just disagree with the idea that you prefigure such graces and merits. You can’t "can it " or institutionalize the Spirit or His will. So indeed St. Paul obeyed His will and preached in this city and not in that one as Paul was led. He indeed shall be rewarded, has been awarded merit. But it is another to be told before hand that it is His will for somebody to walk the trail to Santiago (St. James burial place),or go to mass 4 times a week, or first Friday mass nine months in a row, etc. and certain rewards, merits , indulgences will be gifted by Jesus

 

[Glenn]

You can’t "can it " or institutionalize the Spirit or His will.

Yes, I can see your point. But I’m beginning to think about indulgences not as something that binds us, but as a gift. When we really come to a point of desperation, when our heart is breaking over the pain of a beloved son or daughter, when we are at our wits end and have prayed and prayed, do we not also desire the pleading of our brothers and sisters on our behalf. You and I and they are the church, the body of Christ. So the Church, in its indulgences, speaks comfort on behalf of us all, and thus on behalf of Christ. If an indulgence is received in a mechanical or canned fashion, then I think it is rather worthless. But if it is received in thankfulness for the mercy of Christ, then I see how it can be a true gift.

 

[Gorgias]

You can’t "can it " or institutionalize the Spirit or His will.

We can’t “institutionalize it”… but God can.

Jesus literally gave us his proxy to bestow grace on his behalf. He literally promised that the Holy Spirit would be present when we did. When He commands the leaders of the Church that He instituted to baptize, or forgive sins in His name, He was literally saying “when you do this, I’ll do that”…!

And, it wasn’t a limited grant of proxy, either! He told Peter that whatever he did on earth, Jesus would uphold in heaven!

But it is another to be told before hand that it is His will for somebody to [do certain stuff] and certain rewards, merits , indulgences will be gifted by Jesus.

But, that’s pretty much exactly the way that Jesus operated!

He told us that when we do stuff, it has supernatural effects:

• When two or three gather in His name, He is there.
• When an apostle (or later, their successors) forgives someone, He forgives them in heaven.
• etc, etc.

Human action – divine reaction. It’s at the heart of Jesus’ call to us.

 

[mcq72]

He told us that when we do stuff, it has supernatural effects:

I agree, and used Paul as an example. But what is stuff ? It certainly is doing His will, but again is it predescribed ? Did Jesus prescribe an indulgence for saying so many “Our Father’s” or for attending so many masses and certain type of masses, or walking on our hands and knees during pilgrimage ? For sure visit the sick, pray for one another, stand up for righteuosness, preach and teach, tithe, sing His praises…for sure they bring supernatural repercussions, and if one wants to say it adds to the grace “bank”, maybe.

 

[mcq72]

And, it wasn’t a limited grant of proxy, either! He told Peter that whatever he did on earth, Jesus would uphold in heaven!

Ok, but that “whatever” went too far with much later successors. It was also conditional, that Peter can not bind what would not be bound in heaven. He can not bind contrary to what Christ would bind.

 

[mcq72]

I’m not sure what you mean by “marker”.

By example even the context of these few posts, deals with CC view of other churches at Trent and at Vat II.There seems to be a distinct marking, attitude, teaching focus at each of these councils

Some deny any change in attitude, ecumenicalsim, or doctrine from one council to the next. Others propse a huge change in attitude, even ecuminically positive, just short of doctrinal change. So that they acknowledge there is indeed salvation in these churches, with the caveat that it is due to the salvation that came from Catholic Church first. The doctrine of no salvation outside the Catholic Church uttered earlier in history must forever be maintained in any unification attempts.

 

[Gorgias]

Did Jesus prescribe an indulgence for saying so many “Our Father’s” or for attending so many masses and certain type of masses, or walking on our hands and knees during pilgrimage ?

Not explicitly. However, we should consider a few salient points:

• Jesus gave explicit and unlimited proxy to Peter to act in His name and with His authority, with respect to the Church.
• Jesus emerges from a religious tradition which endorses the performance of salutary deeds, which bring God’s blessing on the faithful.
• Prayer, religious pilgrimage, and other actions – when done out of a love of God and love of fellow humans – are precisely the ‘good’ works that we do as a result of the grace that God pours out on us. We know that God rewards these acts. Is your issue here not on the ‘work’ but on the delineation of the reward?

 

[Gorgias]

Ok, but that “whatever” went too far with much later successors.

Did I miss the part where Jesus said, “what you bind/loose on earth will be bound/loosed in heaven, unless you go too far”…? And, if Jesus didn’t say it that way, then how can you assert that this was Jesus’ will?

It was also conditional, that Peter can not bind what would not be bound in heaven.

You’re going to have to substantiate that one; I’m not seeing it anywhere in Scripture or Tradition. On what basis do you make that claim?

He can not bind contrary to what Christ would bind.

And again… substantiation, please? In particular, where is it specified that this is the case, and who is given the authority to comment on “what Christ would bind”?

You’re making positive assertions from thin air, it seems, from my perspective. Please help me understand where you’re seeing this in Scripture or Tradition.

 

[Glenn]

Thanks again to all who responded to this topic. You have been very helpful. I need to spend some time thinking and praying about what I have learned.

God bless.

 

[goout]

goout:

I’m not sure what you mean by “marker”.

By example even the context of these few posts, deals with CC view of other churches at Trent and at Vat II.There seems to be a distinct marking, attitude, teaching focus at each of these councils

Some deny any change in attitude, ecumenicalsim, or doctrine from one council to the next. Others propse a huge change in attitude, even ecuminically positive, just short of doctrinal change.

doesn’t matter what people propose, or how they understand what the Church proclaims. The Church says what it says, it continuity.

So that they acknowledge there is indeed salvation in these churches, with the caveat that it is due to the salvation that came from Catholic Church first.

Yes. And? No one disputes that.

The doctrine of no salvation outside the Catholic Church uttered earlier in history must forever be maintained in any unification attempts.

There is no salvation outside the Church, because the Church is Christ’s Mystical Body, not just a human creation. And there is no salvation outside Christ.

 

[mcq72]

There is no salvation outside the Church, because the Church is Christ’s Mystical Body, not just a human creation. And there is no salvation outside Christ.

"The Church is very clear here. There is no salvation apart from a salvific union with the Catholic Church. "

"This is not unlike the situation that existed prior to the establishment of the Catholic Church. Even before it was fully revealed that he was the Messiah, Jesus himself taught that “salvation is from the Jews” (Jn 4:22). He pointed the woman of Samaria to the body of believers existing at that time, through which salvation would be offered to all mankind: the Jews.

In a similar fashion, now that the Messiah has established his Church, Jesus might say, “salvation is from the Catholics”!"

Excerpts above from Tim Staples Catholic.com and Jim Blackburn Catholic Answers

Again, we can not gloss over these sectarian decrees. All agree that salvation is thru the Christian church now, but we do not agree that it is exclusively or proprietary “Catholic”

That would be tantamount to Christ not proclaiming “Salvation is of the Jews”, but instead proclaiming one sect over the other , and saying “Salvation is of the Pharisees ( or Essenes etc)”.

Jesus is Jewish and not Catholic. He is the head of His body. The rest of the body is not proprietary to Roman Catholicism today but to catholicism, universalism yes as always. That is my opinion and contrary to those who say the body of Christ is “Catholic”, just as her CC view does negate the Orthodox and Protestant churches, the contrary view does not negate any catholicism that may rest in Catholic churches.

 

[mcq72]

Yes. And? No one disputes that.

But we do. Do the Orthodox teach that first came the Catholic Church under the jurisdiction of Rome and thru Peter and his latin successors, and then later the east rebelled and broke away under a patriarch system ?

Do the Protestants teach the same, that they broke away from the church that Jesus established? Do they teach they broke away from the authority structure Jesus established ?

So I don’t think anyone teaches that the CC was the first church except for the CC. Again, a CC by her definition at the time of schisms
( Orthodox/Protestant).

 

[Gorgias]

So I don’t think anyone teaches that the CC was the first church except for the CC.

I think that a more truthful response would be that many Christians teach that their Church / denomination has the claim to primacy. And, logic being what it is, that implies that at most, only one of those claims is true.

 

[mcq72]

doesn’t matter what people propose, or how they understand what the Church proclaims. The Church says what it says, it continuity.

Agree. But the church does not make proclamatons from a vacuum. There are varied voices from within the church, and pressures from without. For sure attitudes and beliefs can change but only up to the boundary of predated doctrine, or continuity as you say. That is fantastic, (irrevocability) as long as all predated doctrine is infallible.

 

[mcq72]

I think that a more truthful response would be that many Christians teach that their Church / denomination has the claim to primacy. And, logic being what it is, that implies that at most, only one of those claims is true.

First, thank you for being patient and letting me speak forth strongly

But if you look closely what is suggested there is another logic apart from sole proprietary , from one right all others wrong shielded by absolutism. If truth is absolute and truth could and obviously was grasped universally by the power and guidance of the Holy Ghost and the apostles, so much so that the adjective describing the true church, catholic/ universal became its proper name, that nothing has really changed, except some doctrines and practices and proper names (Catholic , Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian etc.). So truth lies where it lies, irrespective of proper names. So if Baptists and Coptics and Old Catholics say Jesus is the Son of God incarnate etc, there lies primacy of truth universally. Etc.,
etc…

Apostolic is as apostolic does. That is a Forest Gumpster, ,“Stupid is as stupid does”
It is what you believe and do that counts.