D
davidv
Guest
Please answer my question first. “How was Christ not infallible?”
- Status
J
jomoco
Guest
I believe Christ was indeed infallible. I mean after all He did cure the sick, the blind, the deaf, the horribly diseased, even raising the dead, in an objective self-evident manner, before witnesses, who marveled and believed what their own eyes had seen!
What self-evident miracles whatsoever have any self proclaimed infallible men, just as self-evidently flawed as any of the rest of us wrought? How do they mysteriously become endowed with divine attributes, without meeting any of the criteria, in any self-evident form?
jomoco
D
davidv
Guest
So why did you type in post #100 that He wasn’t?
Based on the above I don’t think understand what infallibility is. Wouldyou, in you own words, define what you think it is?
J
jomoco
Guest
A being un-erringly correct, in a readily apparent self-evident manner, that can be objectively seen by all.
jomoco
D
davidv
Guest
Thank you.
It seem that you don’t have an adequate understanding. This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on infallibility.
Notice, it is a protection from error, not a guarantee of correctness. Please read the rest of the article to get a fuller explanation of the destinction.
J
jomoco
Guest
Which brings us inevitably full circle to the question of which is mightier, self evident tangible truth, or the invisible self proclaimed infallibility, of flawed mortal men’s traditions?
Aquinas and JP2 chose self-evident truth over traditions, and I truly think they’re onto something profoundly important, the notion that self-evident truth and God are synonymous, and inextricable from one another, through all time and space.
A brilliant notion that I most heartily subscribe to myself, as flawed and fallible as I most certainly am, I still believe it.
jomoco
D
davidv
Guest
This sounds like a false dictomy fallacy to me. How can the Truth that can only be known via revelation from God be self evident? The two options above are not the only ones in the set of possible circumstances.
How so? On what topics?
S
secondeve
Guest
I started this thread, but I have decided to leave it, as it seems to have degenerated into a fudged debate about infallibility itself, whereas I wanted it to answer the question “How can we know what is right and wrong with certainty.” There have been many posts, yet no-one has managed to answer this simple question.
I have to say I was disgusted at one poster’s attempts to justify the Church’s role in covering up child sexual abuse. It seems to me that loyalty to a corrupt institution (which the Church is in its human aspect, “always in need of reform” as Vat II said) rather than to little children is utterly disgusting, and I am disappointed by what I have seen of Catholic Answers so far.
I have to say I was disgusted at one poster’s attempts to justify the Church’s role in covering up child sexual abuse. It seems to me that loyalty to a corrupt institution (which the Church is in its human aspect, “always in need of reform” as Vat II said) rather than to little children is utterly disgusting, and I am disappointed by what I have seen of Catholic Answers so far.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I think it has been answered but you have rejected the answers! You seem to believe Jesus was infallible, He founded a Church and promised He would be with us until the end of time. Is it likely He would permit His own community to promulgate errors throughout the world for two thousand years on fundamental doctrines of faith and morality? It is simpler to believe He was misguided - but then you have the problem of explaining why He is the greatest moral teacher known to humanity and His principles are the basis of modern civilisation…
S
secjga
Guest
First of all, Vatican I (not II) defined papal infallibility. It is to be understsood in very narrow manner. What the Church says essentially is that the Pope, or a Council in union with him, or the Bishops in union with him, when teaching on matters pertaining to Faith and Morals (ONLY) will be prevented from teaching in error by the Holy Spirit.
When Pious XII declared the Assumption of Mary as a dogma of the Catholic Church, for example, that dealt with Faith. We know it is true and it is true forever, because he would have been prevented from making an error by the Holy Spirit.
When the Pope gives an interview or writes a book he is acting as a person, not as the successor to Peter and he is not “teaching” on Faith or Morals. He is a normal person and is subject to error.
However we must naturally give our assent to all other papal documents even though they do not deal with matters of Faith and Morals unless it is evident that they contradict something previously defined.
It takes study to be an informed Catholic. Matters that do not deal with Faith and Morals are usually not matters that have eternal consequences. You may or may not be for the death penalty without any consequences to your salvation.
L
LIT56RD
Guest
I went down this trail about two weeks ago trying to get a list of the infallible teachings. One was never produced and I was at times accused of not just accepting things as they are and that all instruction by the church and it’s leaders is infallible until proven not.
You are not alone.
S
secondeve
Guest
Thank you, LIT56RD. It is good to know there is someone sane on here. Frankly I have never read such fatuous nonsense before. People apparently can’t understand the question, let alone give answers. I don’t wish to sound ungrateful, but it seeems to me that CA just gives an opportunity for ignorant, intolerant people to give pompous lectures about matters they don’t understand. And when it comes to justifying child abuse cover-ups I despair. It is not at all how I had imagined; not a good forum at all. One can get no sense out of anyone,I went down this trail about two weeks ago trying to get a list of the infallible teachings. One was never produced and I was at times accused of not just accepting things as they are and that all instruction by the church and it’s leaders is infallible until proven not.
You are not alone.
I had written a final comment in reply to the penultimate post. It mysteriously disappeared…no doubt the thought police have been at it again, stifling free speech and rewarding intolerance.
S
secjga
Guest
Don’t ask to be spoonfed, that is not the mission of the Church. The Church has the mission to help us form a right conscience so that each person can use that as a guide. Don’t ask the Church to give you specific instructions for every move you make. You have a mind of your own, use it rather than just disparaging the Church.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I didn’t see any poster who attempted to justify the Church’s role in ‘covering up sexual abuse’. If you’re talking to ME, all I did was give facts which you apparently missed. . .the fact that at the time of the majority of abuses, the bishops were not engaged in ‘covering up’ abuse but were following the EXPERT ADVICE of medical and legal professionals. Now, after the mid 1980s when the true nature of pedophilia and its incurability was finally understood by those experts (which it had not been before), if any bishop (and there were some, and I said as much) continued on to ‘cover’ and ignored correct procedure, that could and should be prosecuted and that is up to the law of the particular state or country. And I mentioned that. So have at it. But the Church is NOT corrupt and if it disgusts you that I’m loyal to Christ, pardon me, but I value HIS approbation more than yours.
L
Luke1983
Guest
Quite simply put-
For morals:
The decalogue.
Everything is based on it. Pretty simple. The Church teachings come from there and the New Testament. Practically the religion is 85% judaism and 15% Christian. That’s the weight of the Bible between Old and New Testament. Moses and Christ. Go figure! What Christians are is really Jews for Jesus!! Ironic how semantics coupled with arithmetic can reveal and enlighten hidden truths. There aren’t any real pure 100% Christians. We all follow moses and the Old testament 85% i.e. 5 times more than Christ! Go figure!
Without the Old testament the priests wouldn’t know what to say because very few people actually understand the New Testament and which parts are literal and which are metaphorical. Not many understand Christ i.e. God. Quite simply put.
That’s the reason why there have been so many different interpretations-heresies, schisms. What they are is just different interpretations of the same thing really. God.
The Dogma of Infallibility of the Pope is so to preserve the Unity of the Church. Just look what became of the Lutheran Reform and all the various sects that sprung from it! Absolute anarchy and chaos. Everyone interpreting things for themselves without having the slightest idea of what they are talking about.
Obama isn’t infallible. Neither is the Pope. They’re men. God is infallible. Peter never said he was. Christ called him satan meaning he was wrong. What Peter wanted was for Christ not to die. That’s it. It was love for a friend. He didn’t understand Christ’s mission. Just like no one did until he Resurrected. And no Peter wasn’t satan. Many Protestants Luther first and foremost call the Pope i.e. successor of Peter the antichrist based on that!! Ridiculous.
The impurity rituals - mosaic laws were abrogated when Paul rightly interpreted Christ’s teachings on them. I.e. it doesn’t matter what you eat as everything gets digested and what is impure comes out and goes in the sewers. That’s why we eat pork! Thank you Paul for your correct interpretation of Christ! One of the few. Otherwise eating pork was considered impure!!!
Therefore ALL the things about ritual impurity, what to wear, how long your beard must be and other legalistic nonsense have come to pass. And were always man made traditions. Which should have been disregarded in the first place from the beginning but superstition is much more powerful than Faith. When you want to enslave people just invent rituals and tell them God wants you to obey them. If not you’ll go to hell and be punished. What it really means is: don’t eat pork so that you are at our mercy and are controlled by us. We love power. And reinforce our power amongst ourselves at your detriment with rules concocted by us.
“They want the first seats and the names and give glory to each other but are whited sepulchres” or something like that. That’s what I find in priests of today! Most of them. Not all.
That’s why Christ died and that’s why he was hated by the Pharisees who got Him killed. He was destroying their kingdom!!! That’s why he freed us and what he freed us from!
Anyone who regresses into phariseism and legalism is indeed crucifying Him again.
Other pharisees have took the place of the older ones! And more powerful.
Anyway the commandment not to commit adultery was expanded to include don’t commit impure acts and there goes illogicity . First the impurity rituals were abrogated then reinstated. But not to include the ritual impurities but the sexual impurities.
The sexual impurities (that’s what concerns you I suppose) were invented as time went on and people became more “emancipated”. Masturbation is considered to be impure. And put on the same level as anal sex for example! why? Because both aren’t acts for procreation. Ridiculous. Masturbation was considered a sin in the Old Testament and called Onanism. From Onan. Today any sexual act is illicit if not with procreation in mind even premarital sex. Again just plain ridiculous.
People back then used to marry at 15/16/17 and hence were virgins when they wed. Not because they were chosen people and particularly chaste. But because they married earlier during puberty!! What a feat indeed!
Fides et Ratio. Not sola fide like the protestants!
Anyway this is what historically happened. Yes I’m Catholic!
Yes you can have sex if you want! The Commandment is don’t commit adultery. Which means Be Faithful to the woman you love (much nicer put love is clearly stated and not just a prohibition) !!! Assuming you’re a man.
Things pass and change. The New Testament is the only thing which shall remain. The Old is slowly being eroded by scientific discoveries and better understanding of the New.
I believe God spoke clearly only in the New. In the Old it was people who spoke for Him. In the New He spoke for Himself. Who doesn’t understand this fact doesn’t understand the core of the Faith. The basics. This is why there were people who thought that there were 2 gods. A bad one and a good one. One in the Old and another different one in the New. It was just that in the Old men spoke about God. In the New He Spoke.
The Church once taught that the world was heliocentric because it read it in the Old Testament. Many of the worse things that it committed and Pope JPII asked the world for forgiveness
was due to the things written in the Old Testament. To protect judaism i.e the Old Testament and its myths the Church of Christ sinned! Incredible. But not so. In that the New isn’t the Old. And wanting it to be is a sin if not the greatest one! Sin is error…Hope it helps.
- Status